> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Tim Giles <tim...@gmail.com> > To: lilypond-user@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 22:34:00 +0200 > Subject: Re: Scoop (jazz notation) > Thanks for the link, Werner. I have added a comment regarding the jazz > application. Cheers, -Tim > > > On 14 May 2024, at 19:21, Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > > > >> I agree with Tim. It's one of those frequently used jazz-isms that > >> lilypond doesn't handle very elegantly. What's the procedure for > >> submitting a feature request like this? > > > > You might expand > > > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/529 > > > > with comments – and images of professionally typeset scores! – > > regarding its usage in jazz music. > > > > > > Werner > >
Also, it would be good to discuss the feature here to see what people think about it. What kind of variety does it need to accommodate? What is the best way to conceptualize it, and how does it fit into the lilypond language? What are your suggestions for syntax, how you want to use it in code? >From my perspective, to start with, I would disagree that a scoop is an articulation. Conceptually, I can see how it is similar to an articulation, but I think there are bigger differences. Mainly, the space it takes on the page is prior to the note, like a glissando, not above the note, like an articulation. So it has horizontal implications that articulations do not. The scoop also describes how to approach the note, rather than what the note sounds like when you get to it. There is potentially a lot more information in a scoop, including the vertical pitch component, the horizontal duration, and to some extent the shape (linear vs convex vs concave), as well as all the engraving details about the thickness of the line. On the other hand, you could argue that many examples of scoop are not intended to convey specific shapes, so a one-size-fits-all glyph is sufficient, and it is not intended to solve the problem of expressive glissando. Which, is also a reasonable argument. There is no reason both cannot exist. However, from my perspective, I would want to be able to modify the scoop curve, so a solution that does not address spatial configuration would be disappointing. So, I am going to speak to that. My suggestion for syntax, since the scoop comes before the note, would be more along the lines of prefix \scoop c4 rather than postfix like an articulation c4-@ In terms of balancing ease of use with flexibility, there could be a more general function where you could specify the origin of the scoop One idea is to use a number pair to describe the X and Y extent of the scoop in units of staff spaces so the above examples might be \scoopFrom ( 1 . 1 ) c4 % default scoop \scoopFrom ( 4 . 1 ) c4 % long scoop \scoopFrom ( 1 . 4.5 ) c4 % octave tall scoop \scoopFrom ( 1 . -1 ) c4 % scoop from above? If we had this, then \scoop could be a shorthand for \scoopFrom ( 1 . 1 ) A similar but possibly more "musical" approach would be to have the \scoopFrom function take instead of a number pair, another note, that would suggest the location from which the scoop starts \scoopFrom a4 c4 % default scoop \scoopFrom a1 c4 % long scoop \scoopFrom c,4 c4 % octave tall scoop \scoopFrom e4 c4 % scoop from above Elaine Alt 415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is highly underrated*" ela...@flaminghakama.com Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist ~ Educator -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
