Re: PATCHES: 48-hour notice for note spacing and negative frets

[Graham Percival]

On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 07:04:03PM +, Bernard Hurley wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 07:42:21PM +0100, Xavier Scheuer wrote:
> > On 3 February 2011 16:36, Mike Solomon  wrote:
> > >
> > > I have scanned examples from Boulez's Third Piano Sonata, Elliot Carter's
> > > Night Fantasies, Elliot Carter's Sonata, and Stockhausen's Klavierstücke 
> > > II
> > > & IV.  However, I don't want to go to jail for sending out a link to the
> > > LilyPond devel list where these scans are posted.  How should I go about
> > > sharing it w/ all interested parties & staying w/in the realm of what's
> > > legal @ the same time?
> > 
> > I could be considered as "small quotation" (or "fair use" in American law),
> > isn't it?

It might be considered as such.  In America.  Do we only have
Americans reading this email list?

> I assume the examples are fairly small, less than a page. What I
> would do is to make them as small as possible for illustrating
> your point. Then I can't see how this can be anything other than
> "fair use". As a courtesy it might be worth writing to the
> publishers and telling them what you are doing. It's a long time
> since I worked for a music publisher, but I can't see them
> having any objections. You can also butter them up a bit by
> saying they are "examples of best practice"

We're not putting these examples on the mailing list.  We're
certainly not putting them on our website or documentation.

One academic is making a tiny scan of some notation, in order to
send them privately to other academics (I believe that everybody
who is seriously involved in this discussion has a PhD!  -- note
that I am not seriously involved).  These are not publicly
accessible.

You do not need to write to music publishers.  Just send the
maoing 50kb jpg file to Han-Wen, Werner, Reinhold, Keith, and
whoever is involved in writing/reviewing code for this notation
feature which you are working on.

Cheers,
- Graham

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: PATCHES: 48-hour notice for note spacing and negative frets

[Bernard Hurley]

On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 07:42:21PM +0100, Xavier Scheuer wrote:
> On 3 February 2011 16:36, Mike Solomon  wrote:
> >
> > Hey all,
> > I have scanned examples from Boulez's Third Piano Sonata, Elliot Carter's
> > Night Fantasies, Elliot Carter's Sonata, and Stockhausen's Klavierstücke II
> > & IV.  However, I don't want to go to jail for sending out a link to the
> > LilyPond devel list where these scans are posted.  How should I go about
> > sharing it w/ all interested parties & staying w/in the realm of what's
> > legal @ the same time?
> 
> I could be considered as "small quotation" (or "fair use" in American law),
> isn't it?
> 

I assume the examples are fairly small, less than a page. What I would do is to 
make them as small as possible for illustrating your point. Then I can't see 
how this can be anything other than "fair use". As a courtesy it might be worth 
writing to the publishers and telling them what you are doing. It's a long time 
since I worked for a music publisher, but I can't see them having any 
objections. You can also butter them up a bit by saying they are "examples of 
best practice"

 /Bernard

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: PATCHES: 48-hour notice for note spacing and negative frets

[Xavier Scheuer]

On 3 February 2011 16:36, Mike Solomon  wrote:
>
> Hey all,
> I have scanned examples from Boulez's Third Piano Sonata, Elliot Carter's
> Night Fantasies, Elliot Carter's Sonata, and Stockhausen's Klavierstücke II
> & IV.  However, I don't want to go to jail for sending out a link to the
> LilyPond devel list where these scans are posted.  How should I go about
> sharing it w/ all interested parties & staying w/in the realm of what's
> legal @ the same time?

I could be considered as "small quotation" (or "fair use" in American law),
isn't it?

Cheers,
Xavier

-- 
Xavier Scheuer 

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: PATCHES: 48-hour notice for note spacing and negative frets

[m...@apollinemike.com]

On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:02 AM, Mike Solomon wrote:

> Sounds good...Han-Wen (or whoever), shoot me an e-mail for the scores.  They 
> are all scanned from the University of Florida library, so they don't belong 
> to me, but I use them for my research, of which nearly 100% is tied to 
> LilyPond in some way shape or form.
> 
> Cheers,
> MS
> 
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:55 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> 
>> Mike Solomon  writes:
>> 
>>> Hey all,
>>> 
>>> I have scanned examples from Boulez's Third Piano Sonata, Elliot
>>> Carter's Night Fantasies, Elliot Carter's Sonata, and Stockhausen's
>>> Klavierstücke II & IV.  However, I don't want to go to jail for
>>> sending out a link to the LilyPond devel list where these scans are
>>> posted.  How should I go about sharing it w/ all interested parties &
>>> staying w/in the realm of what's legal @ the same time?
>> 
>> You wait for someone you know to contact you via personal mail for the
>> purpose of helping you with your task.  As long as they need the scans
>> to work on a task commissioned by you, that should be reasonably within
>> the confines of fair use as long as you are in legal possession of the
>> requisite originals.
>> 
>> Of course, this is at best an unqualified opinion and must not be
>> confused with binding legal advice.
>> 
>> -- 
>> David Kastrup
>> 

Clean regtests.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4022045

Cheers,
MS

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: PATCHES: 48-hour notice for note spacing and negative frets

[Mike Solomon]

Sounds good...Han-Wen (or whoever), shoot me an e-mail for the scores.  They 
are all scanned from the University of Florida library, so they don't belong to 
me, but I use them for my research, of which nearly 100% is tied to LilyPond in 
some way shape or form.

Cheers,
MS

On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:55 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

> Mike Solomon  writes:
> 
>> Hey all,
>> 
>> I have scanned examples from Boulez's Third Piano Sonata, Elliot
>> Carter's Night Fantasies, Elliot Carter's Sonata, and Stockhausen's
>> Klavierstücke II & IV.  However, I don't want to go to jail for
>> sending out a link to the LilyPond devel list where these scans are
>> posted.  How should I go about sharing it w/ all interested parties &
>> staying w/in the realm of what's legal @ the same time?
> 
> You wait for someone you know to contact you via personal mail for the
> purpose of helping you with your task.  As long as they need the scans
> to work on a task commissioned by you, that should be reasonably within
> the confines of fair use as long as you are in legal possession of the
> requisite originals.
> 
> Of course, this is at best an unqualified opinion and must not be
> confused with binding legal advice.
> 
> -- 
> David Kastrup
> 
> 
> ___
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> lilypond-devel@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: PATCHES: 48-hour notice for note spacing and negative frets

[David Kastrup]

Mike Solomon  writes:

> Hey all,
>
> I have scanned examples from Boulez's Third Piano Sonata, Elliot
> Carter's Night Fantasies, Elliot Carter's Sonata, and Stockhausen's
> Klavierstücke II & IV.  However, I don't want to go to jail for
> sending out a link to the LilyPond devel list where these scans are
> posted.  How should I go about sharing it w/ all interested parties &
> staying w/in the realm of what's legal @ the same time?

You wait for someone you know to contact you via personal mail for the
purpose of helping you with your task.  As long as they need the scans
to work on a task commissioned by you, that should be reasonably within
the confines of fair use as long as you are in legal possession of the
requisite originals.

Of course, this is at best an unqualified opinion and must not be
confused with binding legal advice.

-- 
David Kastrup


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: PATCHES: 48-hour notice for note spacing and negative frets

[Mike Solomon]

Hey all,

I have scanned examples from Boulez's Third Piano Sonata, Elliot Carter's Night 
Fantasies, Elliot Carter's Sonata, and Stockhausen's Klavierstücke II & IV.  
However, I don't want to go to jail for sending out a link to the LilyPond 
devel list where these scans are posted.  How should I go about sharing it w/ 
all interested parties & staying w/in the realm of what's legal @ the same time?

Cheers,
MS

On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Mike Solomon  wrote:
>  
> In the attached example bad.png, I have a difficult time conceiving of how 
> the quant scoring function could anticipate and account for the huge region 
> size that would be necessary to find this collision.  It goes against the 
> "given" above that the beam lies in a reasonable region.
> 
> I have some ideas in this area as well, but can we have a sample of realistic 
> situations of beam collisions first?  I find it hard to believe anybody would 
> actually write that because it is completely unreadable.
> 
> -- 
> Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: PATCHES: 48-hour notice for note spacing and negative frets

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Mike Solomon  wrote:


> In the attached example bad.png, I have a difficult time conceiving of how
> the quant scoring function could anticipate and account for the huge region
> size that would be necessary to find this collision.  It goes against the
> "given" above that the beam lies in a reasonable region.
>

I have some ideas in this area as well, but can we have a sample of
realistic situations of beam collisions first?  I find it hard to believe
anybody would actually write that because it is completely unreadable.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: PATCHES: 48-hour notice for note spacing and negative frets

[Mike Solomon]

On Feb 2, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 12:26 AM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:The most recent patch set only has a single pass through beam quanting.  Idon't believe it adds significant overhead to a score's compile time,although I'd need someone to do some benchmarking to verify that.http://codereview.appspot.com/4022045Han-Wen: could you summarize again your main objections to this approach?  II think the collisions should be done as part of the scoring, not as aseparate function that happens afterwards.  I also think that anynotion of 'pressure' should follow automatically from the scoring.New patchset at http://codereview.appspot.com/4022045 that makes changes to fit with Han-Wen's new beam-quanting code .It seems to me that the idea behind quanting is "given that we have the beam more or less in an appropriate region and at a good slope, find the best configuration for that beam in said region and around said slope."In the attached example bad.png, I have a difficult time conceiving of how the quant scoring function could anticipate and account for the huge region size that would be necessary to find this collision.  It goes against the "given" above that the beam lies in a reasonable region.The example better.png shows a beam with collision avoiding applied before quanting but with quanting commented out of define-grobs.scm .  Note that the beam is now in a region where quanting can be done.The example best.png adds in the quanting function.Given that pressure needs to be calculated only once for the entire beam, it seems that it should not be called in any of the score_X_quants functions.  I cannot see a reason why this code would be in beam-quanting.cc and something like slope_damping would be in beam.cc .  It seems that collision avoidance, like slope damping and shifting, is a precondition of best beam placement and thus belongs before quanting.Cheers,Mike___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: PATCHES: 48-hour notice for note spacing and negative frets

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 12:26 AM, m...@apollinemike.com
 wrote:
> The most recent patch set only has a single pass through beam quanting.  I
> don't believe it adds significant overhead to a score's compile time,
> although I'd need someone to do some benchmarking to verify that.
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4022045
> Han-Wen: could you summarize again your main objections to this approach?  I

I think the collisions should be done as part of the scoring, not as a
separate function that happens afterwards.  I also think that any
notion of 'pressure' should follow automatically from the scoring.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: PATCHES: 48-hour notice for note spacing and negative frets

[m...@apollinemike.com]

On Feb 2, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Graham Percival
>  wrote:
> 
>> Not quite on this list, but I would like to draw people's attention to:
>> some kind of beaming work
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/4022045
>> 
>> I don't know how this interacts (if at all) with Han-Wen's recent work
>> on beams.  There is nothing obviously wrong with Mike's patch.
> 
> As I discussed on-list, I think Mike's patch still is not the right
> way to go, and my patch series is for offering an alternative.
> 

Hey all,

The most recent patch set only has a single pass through beam quanting.  I 
don't believe it adds significant overhead to a score's compile time, although 
I'd need someone to do some benchmarking to verify that.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4022045

Han-Wen: could you summarize again your main objections to this approach?  I 
want to make sure it's going in the right direction, and if it's not, I can 
certainly rebase off of your most recent patch and work from there.  I know 
that my code is less compact than what you came up with, but I couldn't figure 
out a way to pair it down and still deal with all of the eventualities that 
precipitate from the various potential beam collisions that arise in a score.

In any event, given the new beam scoring code, I'm going to be rewriting chunks 
of this patch.  Keep your eyes to the skies for a new patch set in 24ish 
hours...

Cheers,
MS___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: PATCHES: 48-hour notice for note spacing and negative frets

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Graham Percival
 wrote:

> Not quite on this list, but I would like to draw people's attention to:
> some kind of beaming work
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4022045
>
> I don't know how this interacts (if at all) with Han-Wen's recent work
> on beams.  There is nothing obviously wrong with Mike's patch.

As I discussed on-list, I think Mike's patch still is not the right
way to go, and my patch series is for offering an alternative.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel