Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Neil Puttock n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2010 21:36, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
That would already be handled by
{ ...} * 4
which is much more intuitive than ;4
I hadn't even considered that: to me, '*' means altering durations, so
I'd expect such a syntax to work in a way similar to
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=305
Therefore, ':' seemed much more natural (or, as Carl suggested, ';').
You took the words straight out of my mouth. :)
I'm afraid I couldn't resist testing this, so if you're interested,
try the attached patch.
Awesome. I had no idea this would be so frigging simple :-)
I can't stand letting this patch get lost. Added as
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1067
Cheers,
Valentin
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Kieren:
It's not obvious to me whether
c\chord #'(1 7)
should produce c b or c bes. Musically speaking, I'd look at
the key signature; if it were c major, I would assume it meant
c b since b is the seventh note of the scale.
This may be a problem for the numeric syntax. I suppose we could
define each number as being a perfect, major, or minor interval;
users can adjust those intervals with + or - as required.
Or... we could use dodecaphonic intervals, i.e.
c\chord #'(1 11) is a minor seventh
c\chord #'(1 12) is a major seventh
Of course, none of these ideas support systems with
other-than-12-tones-per-octave
=(
I propose we skip the number things and go for a local translate,
see below last in mail.
One could misuse floating poing values:
c\chord_float #'(1 6.5) % minor seventh
c\chord_float #'(1 7.0) % major seventh
To explain that eis == f is doable, but how would one explain
that 3.5 == 4 ??
(That flaw was present in my inital proposal c 3 5)
Rationals:
c\chord_rational #'(1 5/4 3/2) % perfect 3rd and 5th
% replace 5/4 etc. with the proper scheme expression
Cents:
c\chord_cent #'(0 386 702) % just intonation
Or other variants.
One could also define a shorthand translating thing, something like
(though I'm not shure what syntax to use):
cis\chord_barre c e g - cis eis gis
//
If we are discussing shortcuts to notate music (chordal notation are
shortcuts, is it not?), consider the similarity of:
d fis a - d\chord #'(1 3 5) % parallell music
{d fis a} - d\seq #'(1 3 5) % sequential music
There are two things here:
. replacing a note name with a number, eg. e - 3
. naively replacing 3 for the interval third, gives use the enharmonic
problem of 3.5 == 4, and what does 7 mean, a minor or major 7th?
. using dodecaphonic, cents, retionals or the like somehow misses the
shortcut-idéa
. a local transposition, eg. d\chord... == \translate c d { c\chord... }
this would be a better \translate, since it would put the music
in the current octave
The chords are easily defined, we don't need any special
syntax for that (like \chordmode):
chord_major = \relative c { c e g }
\translate below does not work since the d is not relative the
previous music:
... music ...
\translate c d \chord_major
... music ...
Could something like this (or some other syntax) be useful:
... music ...
d\tr\chord_major % -- d fis a in the current octave
... music ...
Going this route, one could define whatever complex chord expressable
in an ordinary ...
Regards,
/Karl Hammar
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
David Kastrup:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
...
And what if you see \chordmode { c,4:1/c c g,:1/g c } in the input
(which is basically how you put bass notes in now if you really must)?
...
For the simple chords c\maj c\dim c\maj7 etc. could suffice.
For more complex chords one could extend the c e g syntax to c 3 5.
Regards,
/Karl Hammar
-
Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
Sweden
+46 173 140 57
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 01:33:42PM +0200, Karl Hammar wrote:
David Kastrup:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
...
And what if you see \chordmode { c,4:1/c c g,:1/g c } in the input
(which is basically how you put bass notes in now if you really must)?
...
For the simple chords c\maj c\dim c\maj7 etc. could suffice.
For more complex chords one could extend the c e g syntax to c 3 5.
That's a very interesting idea! Durations need to be specified
outside the chord, of course, so that's not a concern.
OTOH, what about doing something like this:
c\maj
c\dim
c\chord #'(1 4 5)
c\chord #'(1 3 5 7 11)
If somebody used a lot of special chords, they could define their
own identifiers to replace the \chord functions.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu wrote:
But I think we could use ; in LilyPond, even though it's used for comments
in Scheme, because the ; inside a scheme function aren't interpreted by the
LilyPond parser, IIUC.
I like ';' very much (mostly because it feels familiar when you're
used to ':' ).
Speaking of which, I often wished we had a cool shortcut for writing
repeats using a postfix syntax, e.g.
{ large music expression here };4
instead of
\repeat unfold 4 { large music expression }
Yes I know: a) that's off-topic b) this will wait until GLISS starts.
-- As should this whole discussion IMO: may I take this as an
opportunity to remind you guys that there's a whole new ML for stuff
like that? http://lists.lilynet.net/syntax/
Cheers,
Valentin
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
c 3 5 I like this c\chord #'(1 3 5 7 11) I like this too. Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On 4/29/10 7:12 AM, Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote: c 3 5 I like this Why c 3 5 instead of c e g? c\chord #'(1 3 5 7 11) I like this too. I think I really like this. It allows a transparent definition of what is meant by a chord that is really easy to override. But we'll need to be sure it handles things like c\chord #'(1 3- 5-) And inversions could be handled, too. c\chord #'(3 5 1) or c\chord #'(5 1 3) We could even do bass notes c\chord #'(4 1 3 5) Chord structures could then be referenced easily (e.g. for adding to exceptions) with the scheme list #'(4 1 3- 5-) instead of with notes, which can cause some confusion. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
c 3 5 I like this Why c 3 5 instead of c e g? Honestly, I'm just looking at the syntax form, not how to use it. It simply looks good to me from a syntactical point of view. Whether it's praktical or not, I don't know. I've never used chord mode. Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
c 3 5
I like this
c\chord #'(1 3 5 7 11)
I like this too.
It is not clear to me how this would extend to
\chordmode {
c1:7+ c:5+.3- c:3-.5-.7-
}
\chordmode {
c1:sus c:sus2 c:sus4 c:5.4^3
}
\chordmode {
c1 c/g c/+g
}
c:dim7^5
and similar. It's nice, but a single mode where the full power of
voicing _and_ chords is available similarly convenient would be
preferable to me. Making chordmode and musicmode less compatible by
extending them in disparate ways is just not good strategy.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu writes: On 4/29/10 7:12 AM, Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org wrote: c 3 5 I like this Why c 3 5 instead of c e g? Because bes 3 5 requires less brain than what it would need to be. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On 4/29/10 9:29 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
c 3 5
I like this
c\chord #'(1 3 5 7 11)
I like this too.
It is not clear to me how this would extend to
\chordmode {
c1:7+ c:5+.3- c:3-.5-.7-
}
\relative c' {
c1\chord #'(1 3 5 7+)
c\chord #'(1 3- 5+)
c\chord #'(1 3- 5- 7-)
}
\chordmode {
c1:sus c:sus2 c:sus4 c:5.4^3
}
\relative c' {
c1\chord #'(1 4 5)
c\chord #'(1 2 5)
c\chord #'(1 4 5)
c\chord #'(1 4 5)
}
Or, when we define \sus4 to be equivalent to \chord #'(1 4 5), etc.,
\relative c' {
c1\sus4
c1\sus2
c1\sus4
c1\sus4
}
\chordmode {
c1 c/g c/+g
}
\relative c' {
c1\chord
c1\chord #'(5 1 3)
c1\chord #'(5 1 3 5)
}
Or one could define \sixFour or \inversionTwo to be \chord #'(3 5 1)
I don't know what shortcut one could do for an added bass, because they can
be any pitch.
c:dim7^5
c\chord #'(1 3 7--)
which could be defined as
c\dimSevenNoFive
and similar. It's nice, but a single mode where the full power of
voicing _and_ chords is available similarly convenient would be
preferable to me. Making chordmode and musicmode less compatible by
extending them in disparate ways is just not good strategy.
I understood this proposal as one that would involve eliminating \chordmode,
and replacing it with \chord #'() as part of a regular music stream. That's
what I was responding to. If we're talking about keeping chordmode, with
another syntax for note mode, I wouldn't be in favor of that.
Carl
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On 4/29/10 10:17 AM, Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu wrote:
On 4/29/10 9:29 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
c 3 5
I like this
c\chord #'(1 3 5 7 11)
I like this too.
Or, when we define \sus4 to be equivalent to \chord #'(1 4 5), etc.,
\relative c' {
c1\sus4
c1\sus2
c1\sus4
c1\sus4
}
Oops, we'd probably have to define it as
c1\susFour
and
c1\susTwo
Carl
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Graham: ... OTOH, what about doing something like this: c\maj c\dim c\chord #'(1 4 5) c\chord #'(1 3 5 7 11) I like this. Regards, /Karl Hammar ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Am Donnerstag, 29. April 2010 22:20:27 schrieb Karl Hammar: Graham: ... OTOH, what about doing something like this: c\maj c\dim We already have \dim for text diminuendo... Cheers, Reinhold -- -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 03:11:13PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote:
Speaking of which, I often wished we had a cool shortcut for writing
repeats using a postfix syntax, e.g.
{ large music expression here };4
instead of
\repeat unfold 4 { large music expression }
That would already be handled by
{ ...} * 4
which is much more intuitive than ;4
Yes I know: a) that's off-topic b) this will wait until GLISS starts.
Yes. If you (anybody) want GLISS to start sooner, dealing with
information only in the regtests would be a good start, since it
consists of a whole bunch of individual items/files. Very easy
for lots of people to work on it in parallel.
-- As should this whole discussion IMO: may I take this as an
opportunity to remind you guys that there's a whole new ML for stuff
like that? http://lists.lilynet.net/syntax/
No. If GLISS hasn't started yet, then there's no point sending
emails to that list.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 08:55:13AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: But we'll need to be sure it handles things like c\chord #'(1 3- 5-) Hmm. Might we need c\chord #'(1 3++ 7--) ? I'm not prepared to claim that there's no theory of chords that includes doubly-augmented intervals relative to the base note. We could even do bass notes c\chord #'(4 1 3 5) I'm not entirely comfortable about have 4 1. OTOH, I'm not overly eager to have things like c\chord #'(-4 1 3- 5-) An alternate that makes sense to me would be c\chord #'(-4 1 3es 5es) but then we're dragging language-specific definitions into this construct, which would be bad. or we could just tell people that if they mess around with custom chords (instead of using predefined \maj or \majInversionFirst ), they need to know the difference between a - sign before and after a number. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:17:51AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: On 4/29/10 9:29 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: It's nice, but a single mode where the full power of voicing _and_ chords is available similarly convenient would be preferable to me. Making chordmode and musicmode less compatible by extending them in disparate ways is just not good strategy. I understood this proposal I'm not understanding any of these proposals. :) as one that would involve eliminating \chordmode, and replacing it with \chord #'() as part of a regular music stream. That's what I was responding to. If we're talking about keeping chordmode, with another syntax for note mode, I wouldn't be in favor of that. If anything happens before GLISS -- and I'm not claiming that it will -- then we *will* have a duplicate syntax for chords. We're not making a major change like removing \chordmode until after GLISS. I'm willing to consider adding new commands (like \chord), as long as it's understood that they might _also_ change after GLISS (so the command might only exist for 6-18 months in total). Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On 4/29/10 2:42 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 08:55:13AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: But we'll need to be sure it handles things like c\chord #'(1 3- 5-) Hmm. Might we need c\chord #'(1 3++ 7--) ? I'm not prepared to claim that there's no theory of chords that includes doubly-augmented intervals relative to the base note. There is at least one common chord that uses doubly altered steps: the dim7 chord, which uses a double-flatted 7th., along with a minor thrd and a diminished fifth. So yes, we do need to allow at least --. I don't think we need to go more than two deep on the modifiers, do we? We could even do bass notes c\chord #'(4 1 3 5) I'm not entirely comfortable about have 4 1. I'm totally comfortable with #'(4 1 3 5). I can easily parse that so that steps that come before 1 in the list are an octave down from the current pitch. OTOH, I'm not overly eager to have things like c\chord #'(-4 1 3- 5-) An alternate that makes sense to me would be c\chord #'(-4 1 3es 5es) but then we're dragging language-specific definitions into this construct, which would be bad. I think -4 is confusing, because it sounds like it is 4 steps *below* the root, instead of step 4 an octave lower. I'd prefer, if we need to do something, to do #'(4, 1 3 5), i.e. use the octave indicators we already have. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On 29 April 2010 21:36, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 03:11:13PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote:
Speaking of which, I often wished we had a cool shortcut for writing
repeats using a postfix syntax, e.g.
{ large music expression here };4
instead of
\repeat unfold 4 { large music expression }
That would already be handled by
{ ...} * 4
which is much more intuitive than ;4
You took the words straight out of my mouth. :)
I'm afraid I couldn't resist testing this, so if you're interested,
try the attached patch.
Cheers,
Neil
From 9c143dbdc40ec9a60ad110d2869ce7ad1ed6ca29 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Neil Puttock n.putt...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:52:12 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Cool repeat shorthand for Valentin :)
---
lily/parser.yy |5 +
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lily/parser.yy b/lily/parser.yy
index ac0d357..3b4295d 100644
--- a/lily/parser.yy
+++ b/lily/parser.yy
@@ -994,6 +994,11 @@ repeated_music:
{
$$ = MAKE_SYNTAX (repeat, @$, $2, $3, $4, $5);
}
+ |
+ sequential_music '*' unsigned_number
+ {
+ $$ = MAKE_SYNTAX (repeat, @$, ly_string2scm (unfold), $3, $1, SCM_EOL);
+ }
;
sequential_music:
--
1.7.0.4
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On 4/29/10 2:48 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:17:51AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: On 4/29/10 9:29 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: It's nice, but a single mode where the full power of voicing _and_ chords is available similarly convenient would be preferable to me. Making chordmode and musicmode less compatible by extending them in disparate ways is just not good strategy. I understood this proposal I'm not understanding any of these proposals. :) as one that would involve eliminating \chordmode, and replacing it with \chord #'() as part of a regular music stream. That's what I was responding to. If we're talking about keeping chordmode, with another syntax for note mode, I wouldn't be in favor of that. If anything happens before GLISS -- and I'm not claiming that it will -- then we *will* have a duplicate syntax for chords. We're not making a major change like removing \chordmode until after GLISS. I'm willing to consider adding new commands (like \chord), as long as it's understood that they might _also_ change after GLISS (so the command might only exist for 6-18 months in total). OK. I guess I was looking at this as a step to eliminating the *need* for chordmode and deprecating it (as was suggested by David originally). Of course chordmode won't be eliminated until 3.0 (because we're in a syntax freeze), but I think that if we want to eliminate anything in 3.0, we'd better have some good experience with alternatives, either in 2.13.x or 2.15.x. I was *not* envisioning these changes as a change to chordmode syntax. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 02:51:59PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: On 4/29/10 2:42 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: c\chord #'(4 1 3 5) I'm not entirely comfortable about have 4 1. I'm totally comfortable with #'(4 1 3 5). I can easily parse that so that steps that come before 1 in the list are an octave down from the current pitch. Huh. I thought 4 1 3 5 was supposed to be a first-inversion chord, but instead you were thinking of F C E G ? on first glance, that seems like an odd chord, but as a string player I get nervous when there's only two notes at once, let alone four. How would you indicate a highly-separated chord? Such as (absolute mode) d f' d'' a''' I'd prefer, if we need to do something, to do #'(4, 1 3 5), i.e. use the octave indicators we already have. Hmm. I don't know... mixing apostrophies and commas with numbers seems odd. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu writes: On 4/29/10 2:42 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 08:55:13AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: But we'll need to be sure it handles things like c\chord #'(1 3- 5-) Hmm. Might we need c\chord #'(1 3++ 7--) ? I'm not prepared to claim that there's no theory of chords that includes doubly-augmented intervals relative to the base note. There is at least one common chord that uses doubly altered steps: the dim7 chord, which uses a double-flatted 7th., along with a minor thrd and a diminished fifth. So yes, we do need to allow at least --. I don't think we need to go more than two deep on the modifiers, do we? dim7 is double flatted with regard to the major scale, not with regard to the normal chord 7 (which is flat already). -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 03:02:08PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: OK. I guess I was looking at this as a step to eliminating the *need* for chordmode and deprecating it (as was suggested by David originally). Of course chordmode won't be eliminated until 3.0 (because we're in a syntax freeze), but I think that if we want to eliminate anything in 3.0, we'd better have some good experience with alternatives, either in 2.13.x or 2.15.x. Yeah, but we won't *know* if we're going to eliminate anything in 3.0 until we've had GLISS. The plan was already to finish GLISS, then release 2.16.0, then spend two weeks (or whatever) merging all the syntax changes, then release 3.0.0. It would be more work to add new syntax to 2.16.0 and save all the removals for 3.0.0, but if there's a serious desire[1] for this, I'm happy to support it. [1] NB: as always, I use a strict definition of desire, as in the amount of effort that somebody is willing to use. Saying stuff like I really wish that we could end world hunger, but I'm not going to volunteer or donate anything seems like complete bunk to me. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:14:43PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu writes: There is at least one common chord that uses doubly altered steps: the dim7 chord, which uses a double-flatted 7th., along with a minor thrd and a diminished fifth. So yes, we do need to allow at least --. I don't think we need to go more than two deep on the modifiers, do we? dim7 is double flatted with regard to the major scale, not with regard to the normal chord 7 (which is flat already). It's not obvious to me whether c\chord #'(1 7) should produce c b or c bes. Musically speaking, I'd look at the key signature; if it were c major, I would assume it meant c b since b is the seventh note of the scale. This may be a problem for the numeric syntax. I suppose we could define each number as being a perfect, major, or minor interval; users can adjust those intervals with + or - as required. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Hi all, It's not obvious to me whether c\chord #'(1 7) should produce c b or c bes. Musically speaking, I'd look at the key signature; if it were c major, I would assume it meant c b since b is the seventh note of the scale. This may be a problem for the numeric syntax. I suppose we could define each number as being a perfect, major, or minor interval; users can adjust those intervals with + or - as required. Or... we could use dodecaphonic intervals, i.e. c\chord #'(1 11) is a minor seventh c\chord #'(1 12) is a major seventh Of course, none of these ideas support systems with other-than-12-tones-per-octave… =( Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 05:27:36PM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi all, It's not obvious to me whether c\chord #'(1 7) should produce c b or c bes. Musically speaking, I'd look at Or... we could use dodecaphonic intervals, i.e. c\chord #'(1 11) is a minor seventh c\chord #'(1 12) is a major seventh Of course, none of these ideas support systems with other-than-12-tones-per-octave… =( Curse you! I got really excited when I read the first line, since it seemed like a perfect solution. Then you go and wreck everything. You broke my heart. *sniff* *sniff*I'm going to go listen to country music now. Screw you classical people with your math. (or maths as they say here) Cheers, - Graham my cat left me for a guy with a bigger hard drive PS: we could use a property to indicate the divisions of the octave. Also, most of lilypond already assumes 12 notes per octave, so this wouldn't be a huge (additional) limitation. OTOH, most people writing chords just think/say add a 7th, not add an 11th. Or rather, when they say add an 11th, they're not talking about semitones. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On 4/29/10 3:12 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 02:51:59PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: On 4/29/10 2:42 PM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: c\chord #'(4 1 3 5) I'm not entirely comfortable about have 4 1. I'm totally comfortable with #'(4 1 3 5). I can easily parse that so that steps that come before 1 in the list are an octave down from the current pitch. Huh. I thought 4 1 3 5 was supposed to be a first-inversion chord, but instead you were thinking of F C E G ? on first glance, that seems like an odd chord, but as a string player I get nervous when there's only two notes at once, let alone four. C/F, i.e. a C major chord with an F added in the bass. How would you indicate a highly-separated chord? Such as (absolute mode) d f' d'' a''' d f' d' a' in relative mode, or d\chord #(1 10 15 19) I'd prefer, if we need to do something, to do #'(4, 1 3 5), i.e. use the octave indicators we already have. Hmm. I don't know... mixing apostrophies and commas with numbers seems odd. Well, my preference was to not do anything. I don't think that apostrophes are needed, because we can make steps be 8, 15, etc. I suppose we could make an F in the bass (of a C chord) be notated as -4, and the next octave below as -11, but that requires the user to think beyond the scale degree. I much prefer 4, (for the fourth scale degree down one octave) and 4,, (scale degree 4 down two octaves). Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Neil Puttock n.putt...@gmail.com wrote: I'm afraid I couldn't resist testing this, so if you're interested, try the attached patch. That's great! You might also want to include simultaneous music (...*4). Thanks! -Jay ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Jay Anderson horndud...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Neil Puttock n.putt...@gmail.com wrote: I'm afraid I couldn't resist testing this, so if you're interested, try the attached patch. That's great! You might also want to include simultaneous music (...*4). Thanks! Wouldn't that be a fourfold unisono? -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On 4/28/10 5:38 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Hi, from a user perspective, chordmode is unnecessary and restricted. You can't combine different voices (in particular for adding bass notes), you can't write chords and bass notes together, you can't put non-chorded material in between, relative mode is not possible (like for chord progressions) and so forth and so on. But when specifying a chord with colon syntax, the input can't be confused with a normal music expression. The only distinguishing feature of chordmode is that specifying a pitch _without_ colon will generate a major triad, and that the octave is one higher than normal. That's not enough of a distinction to keep it around. Just let normal music mode accept chords with : notation, and \chordmode is unnecessary and can be deprecated. ly-convert can then turn \chordmode into \transpose c c' and make sure that every pitch spec has a colon attached to it: c: is a legal chord specifier. What effect would this have on the parser? I think that I like this idea, even though I didn't at first thought. As long as it can work with the parser, I can't see any downside. To make this slightly prettier, one can reserve the modifier M (uppercase) for major, then c:M can be written for a major chord, looking slightly better than just c: would. I would NOT be in favor of this. I don't like having two different meanings depending solely on the case of a letter. If we really don't want to have c: stand for a major triad, then I think we should have c:maj stand for a major triad, and need the 7 to be maj7. Although this is potentially confusing, a convert-ly rule could easily be written. Have you been working on a patch for this? Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On 28 April 2010 12:38, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
That's not enough of a distinction to keep it around. Just let normal
music mode accept chords with : notation, and \chordmode is unnecessary
and can be deprecated.
How would you distinguish between chords and tremolos?
\notemode { c4:8 } - two quaver stem tremolo
\chordmode { c4:8 } - V7 chord in F
Regards,
Neil
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu writes:
What effect would this have on the parser?
I have only taken a cursory look so far. When entering chordmode,
something records the chord names and the pitch names, and some grouping
is involved.
I think that I like this idea, even though I didn't at first thought.
As long as it can work with the parser, I can't see any downside.
I am thinking of accordion notation, and the usual accordion
accompaniment goes something like
c, c e g g,, c e g
It is a complete nuisance to have to figure out individual note names
for the chords (since you just have fixed chord buttons on the accordion
anyway), and it is a nuisance not being able to mix bass notes and
chords, and you often have things like
{ c e g4 r c f a8 r } \\ c,2.
or so, too.
Chord mode is just too limited, and I think it makes much more sense
abandoning it rather than duplicating all other functionality into it.
The one thing that requires some thought will likely be the
non-relativable character of chords. Either they should be
independent from note entry, or not. If they are independent, then one
would likely want to allow
\relative c: c' { ... }
and
\transpose c: c, { ... }
to relativize/transpose just chords. But I think it might be saner to
make c: perfectly equivalent to c e g all around so that people need
not think about the implications of using either.
To make this slightly prettier, one can reserve the modifier M
(uppercase) for major, then c:M can be written for a major chord,
looking slightly better than just c: would.
I would NOT be in favor of this. I don't like having two different
meanings depending solely on the case of a letter.
Well, suit yourself. But that's actually standard for Italian, I think
also French, and certainly American accordion notation: bass notes in
the octave below middle c indicate chords (the single bass notes are
notated another octave lower), and a letter above them spells out what
kind of chord: M is major, m is minor, 7 is seventh, d is diminuished.
So since one kind of engraver would actually output those letters, being
able to input them in that manner would feel natural.
If we really don't want to have c: stand for a major triad,
I think it is fine, just a bit obtuse.
then I think we should have c:maj stand for a major triad, and need
the 7 to be maj7.
No, that is going to confuse the heck out of guitarists and pretty much
everybody else as well.
Have you been working on a patch for this?
Not yet. Just mulling over it till now. I am again working out with
accordion notation, and wrapping natural user interfaces around the
existing chord mode would be a major pain in the neck right now.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Neil Puttock n.putt...@gmail.com writes:
On 28 April 2010 12:38, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
That's not enough of a distinction to keep it around. Just let normal
music mode accept chords with : notation, and \chordmode is unnecessary
and can be deprecated.
How would you distinguish between chords and tremolos?
\notemode { c4:8 } - two quaver stem tremolo
Ugh. Did not remember that.
Anyway, here is how I would do this: Chords are much more common than
tremolos, so changing notation for the latter seems like the better
choice. There is already verbose syntax using \tremolo that can also be
used.
If a shorthand needs to be available, c4/8 might work for it. I think
(don't quote me on this) that slashes have meaning right now just after
chords in : notation.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Am Mittwoch, 28. April 2010 18:02:56 schrieb David Kastrup: Anyway, here is how I would do this: Chords are much more common than tremolos, so changing notation for the latter seems like the better choice. Oh, really??? In all the classical orchestra scores that I have looked at (and I have looked at a lot), I have not seen a single chord, but there are several tremolo shorthand notations (to save space, i.e. instead of g8[ g g g] g[ g g g] , they write g2:8 g:8) in about every violin/viola/cello score. It really depends on the type of music you are using. In pop music, chords are more common, but in classical music, tremolo notation is just as essential! Cheers, Reinhold -- -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes: Am Mittwoch, 28. April 2010 18:02:56 schrieb David Kastrup: Anyway, here is how I would do this: Chords are much more common than tremolos, so changing notation for the latter seems like the better choice. Oh, really??? Yup. In all the classical orchestra scores that I have looked at (and I have looked at a lot), I have not seen a single chord, but there are several tremolo shorthand notations (to save space, i.e. instead of g8[ g g g] g[ g g g] , they write g2:8 g:8) in about every violin/viola/cello score. Well, in my violin solo sonatas and partitas by Bach, there is not a single tremolo shorthand, but quite a lot of chords. Granted, the particular stacking/inversion is rarely suitable for chord notation entry. It really depends on the type of music you are using. In pop music, chords are more common, but in classical music, tremolo notation is just as essential! That question is sort of academical. The important thing is that yes, colon notation is already being used in Lilypond music, and so integrating chord colon notation into music as is requires a downward-incompatible syntax change and conversion rules. The ultimate goal of my proposal is to obliterate \chordmode completely. As an intermediate step, it would still be present in its current form as an alternative. So there are basically two ways forward for getting non-ambiguous tremolo and chord syntax: a) change the syntax of tremolos. I already proposed c4/8 which looks nice enough in my opinion. It still requires an incompatible syntax change. b) change the syntax of chords when used used in-score. How? One could write them uppercase, but I think that is a bad idea since C is the German name for c, actually. And accordion notation uses lowercase letters for chords, uppercase for bass notes. Having to input this just the other way round is not going to be particularly legible. There are not that many characters left. Writing c/m for c minor would be conceivable, but the chord inversion c/m/g or even c//g does not get more readable. I really can't think of a good syntax for b), so my personal favorite remains solution a). Which is an actual improvement over c4:8 I should rather think, but then I might be biased. But I am aware that having a downward compatible proposal would greatly improve the chances of this becoming reality in a mostly painless manner, so I am open to suggestions. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
2010/4/28 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
\notemode { c4:8 } - two quaver stem tremolo
Ugh. Did not remember that.
Anyway, here is how I would do this: Chords are much more common than
tremolos, so changing notation for the latter seems like the better
choice. There is already verbose syntax using \tremolo that can also
be used.
I don't agree.
As a (classical) violin player I use tremolos far more often than chords.
I suppose it's a matter of different usage (classical music vs.
popular music).
And the syntax using colons is really useful and far more convenient
than the \repeat tremolo one.
Imagine 8 4/4 mesures of a succession of 4th notes with 16th tremolos.
Current syntax (using colons):
c4:16 d4: e: f: |
g: a: b: c: | % etc.
with \repeat tremolo:
\repeat tremolo 4 c16 \repeat tremolo 4 d16
\repeat tremolo 4 e16 \repeat tremolo 4 f16 |
\repeat tremolo 4 g16 \repeat tremolo 4 a16
\repeat tremolo 4 b16 \repeat tremolo 4 c16 | % etc.
So please, don't change current tremolo easiness.
Cheers,
Xavier
--
Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Hi all, 1. I also disagree with David's statement/opinion that chords are much more common than tremolos. This is certainly true in the pop (e.g., music theatre) scores I compose/arrange/engrave, but absolutely false in the classical scores I compose/arrange/engrave. Since I do roughly equal amounts of work in each world, I conclude that, in my life at least, chords and tremolos are equally common. :-p 2. I'm sure we could find a way to change the [very useful] tremolo syntax into another equally simple form -- i.e., not overloading the colon symbol -- and thus be able to implement David's suggestion (or equivalent/improvement) for chordmode, if it's useful. For example, tremolo notation could be c...@8 or something similar. So please, don't change current tremolo easiness. +1 Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes: 1. I also disagree with David's statement/opinion that chords are much more common than tremolos. This is certainly true in the pop (e.g., music theatre) scores I compose/arrange/engrave, but absolutely false in the classical scores I compose/arrange/engrave. Since I do roughly equal amounts of work in each world, I conclude that, in my life at least, chords and tremolos are equally common. :-p 2. I'm sure we could find a way to change the [very useful] tremolo syntax into another equally simple form -- i.e., not overloading the colon symbol -- and thus be able to implement David's suggestion (or equivalent/improvement) for chordmode, if it's useful. For example, tremolo notation could be c...@8 or something similar. So please, don't change current tremolo easiness. +1 Actually, I find that a rather encouraging statement. I'd have expected don't change current tremolo syntax. c...@8 has some mnemonic value (play a quarter at eighths, oops sounds like a time). But I don't like its look. Would you consider c4/8 an adequate syntax? -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Hi David, Actually, I find that a rather encouraging statement. I'd have expected don't change current tremolo syntax. c...@8 has some mnemonic value (play a quarter at eighths, oops sounds like a time). But I don't like its look. Would you consider c4/8 an adequate syntax? c4/8 can be read as a c quarter note, divided into eighths -- quite nice mnemonically. That being said, I worry about scanning c4/8 versus c4*1/8 and not easily seeing the difference. [For the record, I use the cX*N/M construct a lot... Whether I should *have* to or not is perhaps fodder for a different thread. However, it would take a lot of evidence -- or one really brilliant idea -- to make me think that changing *that* construct is advisable.] So I think we can come up with something that is both typographically simple and mnemonically compelling… How about c4t8 (a c quarter note, tremolo-d in eighths). Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Am Mittwoch, 28. April 2010 20:15:00 schrieb David Kastrup: But I don't like its look. Would you consider c4/8 an adequate syntax? Unfortunately, it's already in use. How would you distinguish the two currently possible syntaxes: c2*3/8 c2*3:8 Cheers, Reinhold -- -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes: Hi David, Actually, I find that a rather encouraging statement. I'd have expected don't change current tremolo syntax. c...@8 has some mnemonic value (play a quarter at eighths, oops sounds like a time). But I don't like its look. Would you consider c4/8 an adequate syntax? c4/8 can be read as a c quarter note, divided into eighths -- quite nice mnemonically. That being said, I worry about scanning c4/8 versus c4*1/8 and not easily seeing the difference. Argh! That's why it's important for me to bounce my ideas off the list. And presumably c4/8*2 would then need to be the valid syntax for a quarter trembling in eights and taking twice as long as planned: meaning tremoli need to be specified before duration scaling. This can be defined to be parsed uniquely, but reeks of being too clever. [For the record, I use the cX*N/M construct a lot... Whether I should *have* to or not is perhaps fodder for a different thread. However, it would take a lot of evidence -- or one really brilliant idea -- to make me think that changing *that* construct is advisable.] That's putting it politely. I agree with that assessment. I am not sure it is the death knell for c4/8, but makes it decidedly less attractive. So I think we can come up with something that is both typographically simple and mnemonically compelling… How about c4t8 (a c quarter note, tremolo-d in eighths). I don't consider that particularly pretty. On the other hand, it is not particularly clever, either, and that may actually be an advantage. I remember that I considered c:7 as chord notation peculiar when I first saw it: so solving the ambiguity from the other side would also meet my approval. In particular since that would not imply downward incompatibility. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes: Am Mittwoch, 28. April 2010 20:15:00 schrieb David Kastrup: But I don't like its look. Would you consider c4/8 an adequate syntax? Unfortunately, it's already in use. How would you distinguish the two currently possible syntaxes: c2*3/8 c2*3:8 The latter makes only limited sense: what does it mean to do an eighth tremolo on a half note that is three times as long as written? Make the latter c2/8*3, and it makes more sense. But I agree that this distinction is a bit fine for comfort. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On 28 April 2010 20:48, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes: So I think we can come up with something that is both typographically simple and mnemonically compelling… How about c4t8 (a c quarter note, tremolo-d in eighths). I don't consider that particularly pretty. On the other hand, it is not particularly clever, either, and that may actually be an advantage. This has a major flaw: while the current syntax allows c: for a default tremolo (or `same-as-the-last-one'), the lexer would scan `ct' as a bare string, meaning you'd always have to declare the duration for a tremolo. Regards, Neil ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
2010/4/28 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Actually, I find that a rather encouraging statement. I'd have
expected don't change current tremolo syntax. �...@8 has some
mnemonic value (play a quarter at eighths, oops sounds like a time).
But I don't like its look. Would you consider c4/8 an adequate syntax?
My completely selfish statement would be, in crescent order of
preference:
1. don't change current tremolo syntax :)
You want to change the behaviour of chords, so then change the chords
syntax, don't touch at the current existing tremolo syntax!
Does have the ':' a specific reason to be used in chords? I mean, does
it have a specific meaning, some mnemonic advantages?
If not, then why not use '@' or '=' instead of colons for chords, and
keep ':' for tromolos, since it is:
– already existing;
– widely used;
– actually I find the current syntax really mnemonic, ':' also means
divided: cf. a c quarter note, divided into eighths.
Whereas chords syntax will have to change *anyway* if you obliterate
\chordmode . Equivalent of
\chordmode { c1 g a g c }
won't be { c1 g a g c} in normal notation.
2. OK, let's do some compromises and change tremolos syntax.
But I don't think we will find another syntax as mnemonic as the
current one, and without side-effects (ex: '/', see Reinhold's msg).
LilyPond syntax is already so unstable, why should I change my
tremolo habits, because of the will to get rid of \chordmode?
Of course, I'm *certainly* biased and also a bit in bad faith. :)
No offense,
Xavier
--
Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com writes:
2010/4/28 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Actually, I find that a rather encouraging statement. I'd have
expected don't change current tremolo syntax. �...@8 has some
mnemonic value (play a quarter at eighths, oops sounds like a time).
But I don't like its look. Would you consider c4/8 an adequate syntax?
My completely selfish statement would be, in crescent order of
preference:
1. don't change current tremolo syntax :)
You want to change the behaviour of chords, so then change the chords
syntax, don't touch at the current existing tremolo syntax!
Does have the ':' a specific reason to be used in chords? I mean, does
it have a specific meaning, some mnemonic advantages?
If not, then why not use '@' or '=' instead of colons for chords, and
keep ':' for tromolos, since it is:
I think = is too close (probably even conflicting) to assignments to
make really sense. Or I'd have suggested it for tremolos already: looks
a lot more like tremolo bars than : does.
Whereas chords syntax will have to change *anyway* if you obliterate
\chordmode . Equivalent of
\chordmode { c1 g a g c }
won't be { c1 g a g c} in normal notation.
Quite true.
My current approach is what would look best for both tremolo and
chords since the conflict has to be resolved in some manner or other.
If there is a particular good combination that is downwards compatible,
so much the better.
But I don't think we will find another syntax as mnemonic as the
current one, and without side-effects (ex: '/', see Reinhold's msg).
I am still not convinced that slashes would not work (see my previous
reply to Reinhold). The question is whether the reasonably nice
mnemonic syntax is worth the potential user confusion in some rather
esoteric border cases.
LilyPond syntax is already so unstable, why should I change my
tremolo habits, because of the will to get rid of \chordmode?
The answer would be because the overall result feels more satisfactory
in the long run to most users. Of course, that depends on us finding
such an overall result and getting some sort of agreement on it.
I find that folding chord syntax into music mode makes a lot of sense.
But that does not mean that I am already convinced of the best syntax
for doing it.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Neil Puttock n.putt...@gmail.com writes: On 28 April 2010 20:48, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes: So I think we can come up with something that is both typographically simple and mnemonically compelling… How about c4t8 (a c quarter note, tremolo-d in eighths). I don't consider that particularly pretty. On the other hand, it is not particularly clever, either, and that may actually be an advantage. This has a major flaw: while the current syntax allows c: for a default tremolo (or `same-as-the-last-one'), the lexer would scan `ct' as a bare string, meaning you'd always have to declare the duration for a tremolo. AFAIR, notes can't start with just a duration, so c/ should work similarly. Wish I had an idea for chord syntax that was more satisfactory than moving tremolo to /. The latter is currently the best I can think of. Maybe someone else has a good idea. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On 4/28/10 3:41 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com writes:
2010/4/28 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Actually, I find that a rather encouraging statement. I'd have
expected don't change current tremolo syntax. �...@8 has some
mnemonic value (play a quarter at eighths, oops sounds like a time).
But I don't like its look. Would you consider c4/8 an adequate syntax?
My completely selfish statement would be, in crescent order of
preference:
1. don't change current tremolo syntax :)
You want to change the behaviour of chords, so then change the chords
syntax, don't touch at the current existing tremolo syntax!
Does have the ':' a specific reason to be used in chords? I mean, does
it have a specific meaning, some mnemonic advantages?
If not, then why not use '@' or '=' instead of colons for chords, and
keep ':' for tromolos, since it is:
I think = is too close (probably even conflicting) to assignments to
make really sense. Or I'd have suggested it for tremolos already: looks
a lot more like tremolo bars than : does.
Whereas chords syntax will have to change *anyway* if you obliterate
\chordmode . Equivalent of
\chordmode { c1 g a g c }
won't be { c1 g a g c} in normal notation.
Quite true.
My current approach is what would look best for both tremolo and
chords since the conflict has to be resolved in some manner or other.
If there is a particular good combination that is downwards compatible,
so much the better.
Does LilyPond use ;? I can't find a use for it in the index, and I can't
think of one.
What about c4;maj7? It's a very small change, and I suppose the difference
between ; and : might be easy to miss, but it's an unused symbol AFAICS that
could readily be adapted for chords.
Thanks,
Carl
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
2010/4/28 Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu: Does LilyPond use ;? I can't find a use for it in the index, and I can't think of one. '?' is used for cautionary accidentals. I'm not a dev but I think ';' is used to express comments in Scheme (not in LilyPond however). Not so easy... -- Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On 4/28/10 4:21 PM, Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/4/28 Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu: Does LilyPond use ;? I can't find a use for it in the index, and I can't think of one. '?' is used for cautionary accidentals. I'm not a dev but I think ';' is used to express comments in Scheme (not in LilyPond however). Not so easy... But I think we could use ; in LilyPond, even though it's used for comments in Scheme, because the ; inside a scheme function aren't interpreted by the LilyPond parser, IIUC. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu writes: On 4/28/10 3:41 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: My current approach is what would look best for both tremolo and chords since the conflict has to be resolved in some manner or other. If there is a particular good combination that is downwards compatible, so much the better. Does LilyPond use ;? I can't find a use for it in the index, and I can't think of one. What about c4;maj7? It's a very small change, and I suppose the difference between ; and : might be easy to miss, but it's an unused symbol AFAICS that could readily be adapted for chords. c4;7 does not really look anything like a chord. Neither does c4:7, to be honest. So at best slightly worse. Certainly would look like a (hopefully) downward-compatible candidate for bringing the feature into circulation before GLISS. I think that c4/7 would look slightly better, and it has the added advantage that / already is part of chord notation. It has the disadvantage of clashing with existing c4*2/3 badly. Turning existing c4*2:8 into c4/8*2 looks like a saner approach: one can theoretically declare a tremolo part of a (scalable) timing specification (and it reads reasonably nicely), but a chord? In contrast, ; appears like it could dodge the issue until GLISS. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:45:10AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
c4;7 does not really look anything like a chord. Neither does c4:7, to
be honest. So at best slightly worse.
Trying to channel Han-Wen here, I think the discussion is going in
the wrong direction. It started off with a few negatives of
chordmode:
- can't combine voices
- can't write chords and bass notes together
- can't put non-chorded material in between
- no relative mode
I'm not going to pretend to understand why this is so (I've never
used chords), but are we certain that it's impossible to solve
these in other ways? I mean, isn't the combining voices a
limitation of the scheme/c++ implementation of chordmode, not a
fundamental property of the input syntax?
Non-chorded material would probably require an additional command
like \normalMusic { ... }, but again, I don't see why we need to
eliminate chordmode to solve these problems.
I'm also not enthralled by the various perlifications being
proposed. The more punctuation we use, the less readable the
format gets. \chordmode{ } is easy for somebody to understand...
they might not know what the mode means, but if I see
\chordmode { c1 g c } I'm pretty certain I'll see a C-major,
G-major, and C-major chord in the output. If we do something
like |C| |G| |C| or C:: or C; or C$ ... well, those don't look
like anything in particular.
Certainly would look like a
(hopefully) downward-compatible candidate for bringing the feature into
circulation before GLISS.
I think that, whatever happens about chordmode or punctuation
marks, this change should wait for 3.0. In other words, after
GLISS.
(on the plus side, we're down to 11 critical bugs, so 2.14 and
gliss are getting nearer!)
In contrast, ; appears like it could dodge the issue until GLISS.
I don't think it's worth introducing a temporary change to a
different punctuation symbol if there's a good chance it would
change in 12-18 months anyway.
Sorry,
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Xavier Scheuer x.sche...@gmail.com wrote: Current syntax (using colons): c4:16 d4: e: f: | g: a: b: c: | % etc. with \repeat tremolo: \repeat tremolo 4 c16 \repeat tremolo 4 d16 \repeat tremolo 4 e16 \repeat tremolo 4 f16 | \repeat tremolo 4 g16 \repeat tremolo 4 a16 \repeat tremolo 4 b16 \repeat tremolo 4 c16 | % etc. So please, don't change current tremolo easiness. I only use the repeat syntax even though it's more verbose. The ':' syntax doesn't work with \unfoldRepeats and if for some reason I want to change it to be written out in the future I just change 'tremolo' to 'unfold'. Here are some functions I use to make them somewhat easier to work with: http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=604. -Jay ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
David Kastrup dak at gnu.org writes:
Hi, from a user perspective, chordmode is unnecessary and restricted.
You can't combine different voices (in particular for adding bass
notes), you can't write chords and bass notes together,
You can do this:
\context Voice {
\chordmode {c}
{g}
}
which, while it is more verbose, does put a bass note on the chord.
you can't put
non-chorded material in between,
Similarly, you can do
\context Voice \relative c' {
c4 \chordmode {c} f a
}
to mix and match chords and non-chords.
relative mode is not possible (like for
chord progressions)
I suspect that it would be possible to add relative mode to chord mode,
although I admit I haven't looked into that yet.
and so forth and so on.
I'm not raising this as an argument against eliminating chordmode, I
just wanted to point out that every thing you asked for explicitly (except
for relative mode) can presently be done in LilyPond.
Thanks,
Carl
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Why don't we get rid of \chordmode?
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:45:10AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
c4;7 does not really look anything like a chord. Neither does c4:7, to
be honest. So at best slightly worse.
Trying to channel Han-Wen here, I think the discussion is going in
the wrong direction. It started off with a few negatives of
chordmode:
- can't combine voices
- can't write chords and bass notes together
- can't put non-chorded material in between
- no relative mode
I'm not going to pretend to understand why this is so (I've never
used chords), but are we certain that it's impossible to solve
these in other ways? I mean, isn't the combining voices a
limitation of the scheme/c++ implementation of chordmode, not a
fundamental property of the input syntax?
I think I already answered that: I think that basically pulling all the
(extensive) functionality of music mode into \chordmode with a slightly
different syntax and duplicating all the accessors is a maintenance and
user complexity sin as compared to pulling all (limited) functionality
of \chordmode into music mode with a slightly different syntax and
reducing it to none.
Non-chorded material would probably require an additional command like
\normalMusic { ... }, but again, I don't see why we need to eliminate
chordmode to solve these problems.
Because we can.
I'm also not enthralled by the various perlifications being
proposed. The more punctuation we use, the less readable the
format gets. \chordmode{ } is easy for somebody to understand...
they might not know what the mode means, but if I see
\chordmode { c1 g c } I'm pretty certain I'll see a C-major,
G-major, and C-major chord in the output.
That's certainly the case for \repeat tremolo as well: you know what
you'll get.
And what if you see \chordmode { c,4:1/c c g,:1/g c } in the input
(which is basically how you put bass notes in now if you really must)?
If we do something like |C| |G| |C| or C:: or C; or C$ ... well, those
don't look like anything in particular.
If we make a separate mode for all the simplest cases of music input,
then try to fit in all the complexity for the harder cases in different
ways, I don't see that we win. Lilypond has a _lot_ of material, having
to learn it a dozen times in different ways for the sake of making a few
isolated cases _look_ simple helps nobody.
In contrast, ; appears like it could dodge the issue until GLISS.
I don't think it's worth introducing a temporary change to a
different punctuation symbol if there's a good chance it would
change in 12-18 months anyway.
There is currently no sane way of entering bass/chord sequences and
chord combinations. That's not something I want to leave untreated for
prospected 12-18 months. I am acutely embarrassed that there is no
reasonably efficient and natural way to enter accordion music in
Lilypond.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
