Ferneyhough (Re: GPD: official shortest note in lilypond)
Paco Vila wrote: If anybody has an edition of Beethoven's Sonata nº8 Op.13 Pathétique for piano, on measure 10 of the first movement (grave) there are some very, very short notes, guess what are they? 128th notes. see http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/piece-info.cgi?id=299 Ah, but they're beamed. What if anyone ever wants to typeset Ferneyhough's Lemma Icon Epigram? -- Mark Knoop inline: lie.png___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
RE: GPD: official shortest note in lilypond
-Original Message- From: Han-Wen Nienhuys [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:05 AM To: Graham Percival Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lilypond-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: GPD: official shortest note in lilypond For unbeamed notes, we have to draw the line somewhere, and it's at 64th right now. If someone can show a reasonable use for 128th we *might* consider it, but my initial reaction is that you should reconsider your use of notation I don't have an axe to grind here, as I've never used anything smaller than a 32nd in music I've worked with. I did notice, however, when I looked at the Plaine and Easie format specification, http://www.iaml.info/files/plaine_easie_code.pdf I noticed that PE supports up to a 128th note, I also noticed that there is no name for a 128th note; a 64th is a hemidemisemiquaver. The lack of a name for a 128th note would indicate that a 64th is a reasonable smallest note. The presence of a 128th note in PE syntax might indicate that a 128th note is a reasonable smallest note. The PE format also clearly shows that the glyphs for flags are not simply stacked to get smaller notes. Carl Sorensen ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GPD: official shortest note in lilypond
On Nov 7, 2007 8:48 AM, Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Knoop wrote: This talk of 'reconsidering your notation' and 'reasonable shortest notes' is rather disturbing. Clearly, composers *do* use 128th (and shorter) notes, both beamed and unbeamed: therefore lilypond *should* support them. The musical notation should be chosen by the composer, not the tool. It is not the job of software writers to dictate what is or is not 'reasonable'. When applied to notation, sure. When applied to software, it *is* the job of project managers to dictate what is or is not `reasonable'. Since we want the issue tracker to be complete, I have added this item as a feature request: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=508 However, it has the lowest possible priority. Adding font symbols is a very hard task, and there's little demand for it. If somebody wants to add this feature, fine -- but I really don't think this issue is as important as the other 163 unsolved issues. I hate parroting we don't have the resources... all the time, but it's true. And I think that transparency and honesty is better than the alternative. Please, please just don't get rid of the *beamed* 128ths and 256ths; I use them both all the time. (I have actually one time needed a flagged 128th in Lily and had to work around the situation, but that's fine. What's crucial are the beams.) As far as the question do composers actually use 128ths?, they do; there are couple of examples in the Beethoven piano sonatas, for example, though, IIRC, they're all beamed. As fas as the question what should our docs say?, I don't have an opinion; but I believe the Finale docs said 128ths for years (and I think they recently added 256ths). -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GPD: official shortest note in lilypond
Hi, 128th notes are specifically supported also in Braille Music although the support is a bit clumsy and seems like an afterthought as it is represented differently from other durations. Regards, Ralph - Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GPD: official shortest note in lilypond
Mark Knoop wrote: This talk of 'reconsidering your notation' and 'reasonable shortest notes' is rather disturbing. Clearly, composers *do* use 128th (and shorter) notes, both beamed and unbeamed: therefore lilypond *should* support them. The musical notation should be chosen by the composer, not the tool. It is not the job of software writers to dictate what is or is not 'reasonable'. When applied to notation, sure. When applied to software, it *is* the job of project managers to dictate what is or is not `reasonable'. Since we want the issue tracker to be complete, I have added this item as a feature request: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=508 However, it has the lowest possible priority. Adding font symbols is a very hard task, and there's little demand for it. If somebody wants to add this feature, fine -- but I really don't think this issue is as important as the other 163 unsolved issues. I hate parroting we don't have the resources... all the time, but it's true. And I think that transparency and honesty is better than the alternative. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GPD: official shortest note in lilypond
Reinhold Kainhofer skrev: Notes with n flags can always be composed by stacking more single flags on top of each other, there does not necessarily have to be a glyph in the font for this, right? Hmm. This definitely does not hold for rests. And we should imo allow for the same durations for rests as we do for unbemed notes. I agree that durations that short should be beamed - otherwise the score will be undreadable. So I am very satisfied with the current solution. -Rune ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GPD: official shortest note in lilypond
Carl D. Sorensen wrote: -Original Message- From: Han-Wen Nienhuys [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For unbeamed notes, we have to draw the line somewhere, and it's at 64th right now. If someone can show a reasonable use for 128th we *might* consider it, but my initial reaction is that you should reconsider your use of notation I don't have an axe to grind here, as I've never used anything smaller than a 32nd in music I've worked with. I did notice, however, when I looked at the Plaine and Easie format specification, http://www.iaml.info/files/plaine_easie_code.pdf I noticed that PE supports up to a 128th note, I also noticed that there is no name for a 128th note; a 64th is a hemidemisemiquaver. The lack of a name for a 128th note would indicate that a 64th is a reasonable smallest note. The presence of a 128th note in PE syntax might indicate that a 128th note is a reasonable smallest note. This talk of 'reconsidering your notation' and 'reasonable shortest notes' is rather disturbing. Clearly, composers *do* use 128th (and shorter) notes, both beamed and unbeamed: therefore lilypond *should* support them. The musical notation should be chosen by the composer, not the tool. It is not the job of software writers to dictate what is or is not 'reasonable'. -- Mark Knoop ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
problem translating documentation in lilypond/translation
Hello,
I get this error when making web on lilypond/translation branch:
./introduction.texi:1099: pdfTeX error (ext4): \pdfendlink ended up in
differen
t nesting level than \pdfstartlink.
\onepageout ...\ewbot \hfil \ewbot }}\egroup \fi }
}\advancepageno \ifnum
\ou...
output {\onepageout {\pagecontents \PAGE }
}
l.1099
./introduction.texi:1099: == Fatal error occurred, no output PDF file
produce
d!
Transcript written on lilypond-learning.log.
/usr/local/bin/texi2dvi: pdfetex exited with bad status, quitting.
make[3]: *** [out-www/lilypond-learning.pdf] Error 1
I didn't spend too much time investigating, the file introduction.texi
has only 977 lines, where is the mistake located? Is it fixed in GDP?
Greetings
Till
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: problem translating documentation in lilypond/translation
Till Rettig wrote: ./introduction.texi:1099: == Fatal error occurred, no output PDF file produce d! Transcript written on lilypond-learning.log. /usr/local/bin/texi2dvi: pdfetex exited with bad status, quitting. make[3]: *** [out-www/lilypond-learning.pdf] Error 1 I didn't spend too much time investigating, the file introduction.texi has only 977 lines, where is the mistake located? Look at out-www/introduction.texi this is the file after running through lilypond-book and translating all the @lilypond[] stuff into images. That file will have more than 1099 lines. Is it fixed in GDP? I'll have to let John answer this one. I can compile GDP. I _think_ that this also compiles the translations. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GPD: official shortest note in lilypond
On Wednesday 07 November 2007 21:39:23 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 02:03 +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote: As a composer by myself, it's a mystery to me why so many composers love to use 128th and 256th, most time for no good reason. Let's ask ourselves about that well-known piano hack, Ludwig van Beethoven. Later we'll turn to Mozart, who didn't confine himself to 128th notes, but used 256th notes too. I'm sure you'll start explaining why you're a better composer than Beethoven and Mozart, at least, you're not given to such notational distortions as those two well-known fools. I'll mention another incompetent composer who writes 128th notes. Bach. Variation 16 of the Goldberg Variations. What was he thinking? Ian -- ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GPD: official shortest note in lilypond
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 02:03 +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote: As a composer by myself, it's a mystery to me why so many composers love to use 128th and 256th, most time for no good reason. Let's ask ourselves about that well-known piano hack, Ludwig van Beethoven. Later we'll turn to Mozart, who didn't confine himself to 128th notes, but used 256th notes too. I'm sure you'll start explaining why you're a better composer than Beethoven and Mozart, at least, you're not given to such notational distortions as those two well-known fools. For the rest of us, who think these guys *define* successful piano writing, we find that such monuments as the Pathetique Sonata, the Diabelli Variations, the Eroica Variations, and the Mozart C Minor Sonata, all require 128th notes. If you don't care about typesetting the highest glories of the repetoire, that's your business, but you can hardly say it's some sort of minor issue. CASE ONE: In the Sonata Opus 13, already mentioned, there are two runs notated with 128th notes. While some pianists ignore his careful notation, Beethoven is not just giving a piacere runs where you pace it more or less how you like and just play fast; no, he is expecting you to hold to the beat. If he doubled the note values, the piece would be notated in 4/2, which is (1) extremely uncommon, and (2), likely to confuse the tempo indication. The C time signature and the Grave tempo give exactly the right sense of the introduction, and any change would materially alter the interpretation. CASE TWO: For another example, the 24 Variations by Beethoven on Righini's Arietta Vieni amore use 128th notes in the 23rd variation. The first 22 variations and the theme are noted Allegretto in 2/4 time, except for the 19th which divides the two beats in thirds, for 6/8 time. The last variation is back to 2/4, a bit faster (Allegro), with some tempo games as Beethoven does some inconsequential little developments. So what about the 23rd variation? As is frequent, a slow variation comes next to last; this one is Adagio sostenuto. But it would be an abuse to change the timing of the measures radically. He does a delightful development by timing this adagio in threes, so we must have a 3/4 signature. A 3/2 signature would be, as I said, an abuse, and would indicate something very different from keeping the quarter-note timing, and marking it 3/4. Likewise, it would be insane to alter the whole piece to be mostly 2/2 instead of 2/4. That would make it an alla breve feel, instead of the light allegretto Beethoven is working with, and would radically change the interpretation. So, in the 23rd variation (I say all this because the Op. 13 is on everyone's shelf, and this is not, so it's harder for you to check), in the second time through the second part of the Arietta, the left hand accompaniment is sixteenth-note detache chords, and the melody consists of little fillips, four notes to each chord, thus requiring 64th notes. And--you know, it is Beethoven!--as the melody comes to a conclusion, the chords in the left hand stop, and the fillips become disconnected and have some dotted rhythms. And, bingo, that requires of course the pairing of a 128th note with a dotted 64th note. CASE THREE: Now we turn to the Eroica Variations, Opus 35. Again in the slow variation (number fifteen) we find the 128th notes twice. As with case two, the theme-and-variations format constrains one's ability to change timings in the slow variation because of the need to preserve consistency between variations. In this one, the 128th notes are found in two rapid runs (measures 8 and 31) where again they are part of timed rapid passages much like in the Opus 13. Also part of the fifteenth variation (though noted in the last measure of the fourteenth) is a rapid run in *grace notes* of 128th notes. CASE FOUR: The Six Variations, Opus 34, in the Molto Adagio section of the last variation, contain again some examples, again this time in rapid timed runs as we saw in the Opus 13. Counting the Molto Adagio marking as measure 1, the runs occur in measures 4, 7, 17. CASE FIVE: Perhaps these 128th notes were youthful indiscretions. Nope, for we find the same phenomenon in the Diabelli Variations, Opus 120. Again in the slow variation (Quel Suprise!), number 31, we find rapid timed runs in two measures which need 128th notes. CASE SIX: Oh, but now you're saying, one sonata and theme-and-variations? That doesn't count! Nobody respects theme-and-variations! Of course, the delightful Fantasia Opus 77 once again shows Beethoven's ineptness. He uses the forbidden note for a run in the next to last measure, where it is clearly necessary, and could only be avoided by setting the timing wrong on the whole rest of the piece. CASE SEVEN: We turn now to another fool (in your clear estimation) who didn't know how to write proper music, one Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Unlike Beethoven, Mozart *likes* a piacere fast runs, so we
Re: GPD: official shortest note in lilypond
On Nov 7, 2007 7:03 PM, Werner LEMBERG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please, please just don't get rid of the *beamed* 128ths and 256ths; I use them both all the time. This is something you should get punished for :-) :-D -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: GPD: official shortest note in lilypond
Please, please just don't get rid of the *beamed* 128ths and 256ths; I use them both all the time. This is something you should get punished for :-) A longer time ago we performed the excellent opera `Luci mie traditrici' from Salvatore Sciarrino which uses 32nd-tuplets all the time. The score would have been much easier to read if he had used 16nd-tuplets instead... As a composer by myself, it's a mystery to me why so many composers love to use 128th and 256th, most time for no good reason. Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
