Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
Hi Chris, > I tried editing the feta mf sources, but I > can't seem to get the modified fonts to load into lilypond (2.11.20). > i.e. I've edited "feta11.mf", saved as feta11.svg and replaced the > default one in the lilypond installation, but a lilypond score with > #(set-global-staff-size 11.22) doesn't display the alteration. I > don't have to recompile everything, do I? As far as I can tell: Yes, you do. For a clean solution you need a new accidental style so it is necessary to adapt the code which handles this (in order to tell Lilypond when to use the new accidentals and when to use the old ones; if I understood it correctly you simply tried to replace the old ones?). This also requires unique identifiers for the new glyphs, and if I am not missing anything there is no way around directly editing the metafont source and recompiling. > > As an alternative, could I make a small donation to get the arrows > within the next few weeks? :) As you probably noticed when reading the emails, Orm Finnendahl and I started working on this but both of us were quite busy in the meantime. Since there were a couple of issues with the design that were not obvious from the outset it has been resting for a while. (It was no problem, for example, to design an arrowed sharp-sign that looks pleasing for itself; but it seems to be a nontrivial task how to make it look good both *between* and *on* the stafflines.) I will contact you off-list so that we can exchange our experiences and our work so far. I think it might be possible to get this working within the next few weeks but I don't promise anything because I can't tell how much time I (and others) will have. Cheers Max ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
Hello, I'm excited to see people working on arrowed accidentals. I could really use this feature. I tried editing the feta mf sources, but I can't seem to get the modified fonts to load into lilypond (2.11.20). i.e. I've edited "feta11.mf", saved as feta11.svg and replaced the default one in the lilypond installation, but a lilypond score with #(set-global-staff-size 11.22) doesn't display the alteration. I don't have to recompile everything, do I? As an alternative, could I make a small donation to get the arrows within the next few weeks? :) Many thanks, Chris On 04/02/07, Trevor Bača <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/4/07, Maximilian Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > motivated by Orm's proposal to make arrowed accidental glyphs available, > I have started a few experiments with the feta mf-sources. They seem to > be quite promising, and I think that we will soon be able to provide the > "arrowed" style as an alternative -- for a suitable meaning of "soon", > though, since Orm and I are both rather busy at the moment. > > However, in the process of playing around there have arisen a few > questions. They are currently mostly with regard to the actual glyph > design (I haven't tampered much with the engraving code yet). < snip > > 7) Since I have never used quartertones and other microtones myself: Is > there a difference between, say, a sharp sign with arrow down and a > natural sign with arrow up? As far as I understand it, both denote a > quartertone above the note they are attached to, right? Would it be > desireable to use both of them simultaneously? (If I am not missing > something, this might cause a syntax problem when the cascaded approach > is used.) Depends on the composer and possibly even the particular score. One way of using the arrowed glyps is as you describe with enharmonic equivalence. Another way (and the one that I see more often ... but this may just be a side-effect of the particular scores I'm looking at) is that any up-arrowed glyph simply means "ever so slightly sharp of whatever accidental I'm attached to" and the "ever so slightly flat" for any down-arrowed glyph. This allows for, for example, the following downward sequence of distinct pitches: * C natural * C down-arrowed natural (just barely flat of C natural, but not as flat as C quartertone flat) * C up-arrowed quarterflat (just barely sharp of C quarterflat) * C quarterflat (precisely one quartertone flat of C natural) * C down-arrowed quarterflat (just barely flat of C quarterflat) * etc ... -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel -- Rop tú mo baile, a Choimdiu cride: ní ní nech aile acht Rí secht nime. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
On 2/4/07, Maximilian Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi everyone, motivated by Orm's proposal to make arrowed accidental glyphs available, I have started a few experiments with the feta mf-sources. They seem to be quite promising, and I think that we will soon be able to provide the "arrowed" style as an alternative -- for a suitable meaning of "soon", though, since Orm and I are both rather busy at the moment. However, in the process of playing around there have arisen a few questions. They are currently mostly with regard to the actual glyph design (I haven't tampered much with the engraving code yet). < snip > 7) Since I have never used quartertones and other microtones myself: Is there a difference between, say, a sharp sign with arrow down and a natural sign with arrow up? As far as I understand it, both denote a quartertone above the note they are attached to, right? Would it be desireable to use both of them simultaneously? (If I am not missing something, this might cause a syntax problem when the cascaded approach is used.) Depends on the composer and possibly even the particular score. One way of using the arrowed glyps is as you describe with enharmonic equivalence. Another way (and the one that I see more often ... but this may just be a side-effect of the particular scores I'm looking at) is that any up-arrowed glyph simply means "ever so slightly sharp of whatever accidental I'm attached to" and the "ever so slightly flat" for any down-arrowed glyph. This allows for, for example, the following downward sequence of distinct pitches: * C natural * C down-arrowed natural (just barely flat of C natural, but not as flat as C quartertone flat) * C up-arrowed quarterflat (just barely sharp of C quarterflat) * C quarterflat (precisely one quartertone flat of C natural) * C down-arrowed quarterflat (just barely flat of C quarterflat) * etc ... -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
Maximilian Albert escreveu: > Wow, that was both very fast and very helpful. Thanks a lot, Han-Wen! > >> I think it's best if all arrowheads have the same size. > > That was my plan anyway. This is all still very experimental. > >> Also, the brushed stem with the arrowed flat looks awkward. I'd also >> try making it straight. > > Even if that means altering the arrowed flat glyph so that it differs > from the regular one? Yep. >> I think that they should not have variable shapes. Rather, the size should >> be small enough to be either entirely in the space (not touching any line). >> Also it, should be centered in the space or on the line, so >> its Y position should be rounded to achieve this. > > Since you have a lot of experience with these issues: I have found that > precisely centering the arrowhead between the staff lines gives an > impression of the head being too low, as if being "clamped" to the lower > line (probably because its lower half is much darker than the upper > one). Do you think this should be corrected by slightly shifting it up > and thus leaving a little extra white space beneath it? Or is it better > to retain the exact position, regardless of visual side effects? Hmm, you have a point there. How does the position of the on-line glyph look best? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen LilyPond Software Design -- Code for Music Notation http://www.lilypond-design.com ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
Wow, that was both very fast and very helpful. Thanks a lot, Han-Wen! > I think it's best if all arrowheads have the same size. That was my plan anyway. This is all still very experimental. > Also, the brushed stem with the arrowed flat looks awkward. I'd also > try making it straight. Even if that means altering the arrowed flat glyph so that it differs from the regular one? Or do you mean only altering the arrow shaft? I haven't tried it but I suppose the latter solution (a brushed stem passing into a straight shaft) would look rather bad. So I suppose for a straight arrow shaft one would also need a straight stem. This shouldn't be a problem, though -- I'll give it a try in the next days. Although I think that most of the current awkwardness is due to the rather long stem combined with the large arrowhead. Anyway, further experiments will clarify things. > I think that they should not have variable shapes. Rather, the size should > be small enough to be either entirely in the space (not touching any line). > Also it, should be centered in the space or on the line, so > its Y position should be rounded to achieve this. Since you have a lot of experience with these issues: I have found that precisely centering the arrowhead between the staff lines gives an impression of the head being too low, as if being "clamped" to the lower line (probably because its lower half is much darker than the upper one). Do you think this should be corrected by slightly shifting it up and thus leaving a little extra white space beneath it? Or is it better to retain the exact position, regardless of visual side effects? Cheers Max ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
Maximilian Albert escreveu: > For purposes of illustration, I attached a small example of the glyphs > in (one of) their current preliminary shape(s). Please note that the > arrowheads of the flat signs are larger (resp. smaller when pointing > down) than those of the sharp signs because their size is currently > computed from the width of the stem. But since the design is entirely > parametrized, it is no problem to change it. I will do that as soon as I > have a precise idea of their final size. I think it's best if all arrowheads have the same size. Also, the brushed stem with the arrowed flat looks awkward. I'd also try making it straight. > 1) Are there any general guidelines or restrictions w.r.t. the overall > design of the arrows (e.g., regarding size, shape, etc.)? Is it > sufficient if they are aesthetically pleasing and go well with the usual > accidental glyphs? not that I know of. However, all my engraving books are with Jan ATM, so maybe he can have a look. I suspect that Stone's Notation in the 20th century will have some samples. > 2) I thought about setting the length of the arrow shafts in such a way > that the arrowheads are placed either completely _between_ two staff > lines or _on_ the lines, depending on the corresponding position of the > alteration sign (more or less as in the example). Another possibility is > to always avoid staff lines, which probably wouldn't look too bad > either. But then the distances betweeen the accidentals and the > arrowheads would vary, and the code would have to be adapted so that it > takes the position of the accidental into account. Opinions? > 3) How about the size? To increase readability, I think the arrowhead > should fit completely between two staff lines so that it would be about > as large as those attached to the sharp signs in the example. But I > might be wrong. (They seem a bit "invisible" that way when seen from > further away.) I think that they should not have variable shapes. Rather, the size should be small enough to be either entirely in the space (not touching any line). Also it, should be centered in the space or on the line, so its Y position should be rounded to achieve this. > 4) What do I need to bear in mind during the design w.r.t. collision > avoidance and similar issues? How do the corresponding algorithms > determine the overall size of the glyph? from the bounding box, so set_char_box should produce an accurate box. > 6) As an aside: When the "test" parameter in the mf/*.mf files is set to > a nonzero value, metafont prints staff lines, too (for testing > purposes). However, I experienced that the arrowhead seemed to touch or > even cross them in the *.dvi file produced by gftodvi, but after > compiling lilypond and viewing the pdf output, this turned out not to be > the case. Is this an inherent problem or can it be fixed somehow? Probably the line thickness for the test staff doesn't match the one that lily uses; the MF code should be adjusted. > 7) Since I have never used quartertones and other microtones myself: Is > there a difference between, say, a sharp sign with arrow down and a > natural sign with arrow up? As far as I understand it, both denote a > quartertone above the note they are attached to, right? Would it be > desireable to use both of them simultaneously? (If I am not missing > something, this might cause a syntax problem when the cascaded approach > is used.) This depends. The microtone code doesn't assign any special meaning to any glyph, so the user may choose. >>> The recent microtone improvements needed a much more flexible way to >>> map pitches onto symbols, and it seems superfluous to have two >>> mechanisms for setting glyphname at the same time. It would be >>> possible to have a mechanism to set the alist based on the style >>> property, but I thought it would be overkill. > > Please correct me if I am wrong, but IMHO the "style" syntax is much > more intuitive and easy to use (in particular for newcomers), especially > if the final goal is towards a cascaded approach similar to what Jürgen > proposed. Of course, internally there should be only one _mechanism_ to > choose the glyphs but I think that being able to set the alists by using > the style property in the _syntax_ is highly desirable because it > increases readability of the *.ly files and does not require the user to > know what happens "under the hood". Of course, strictly speaking, if one > simply follows the examples in the docs and sets the alists accordingly, > this doesn't require any further knowledge either, but somehow it > doesn't _feel_ right to have to do so :). Maybe it is just me. it would be possible to set a callback on the glyph-name-alist, a callback that selects a vector depending on the 'style property. I don't see a need what cases require cascaded approach for styles. > Anyway, would you have any objections if I tried some time (whenever > that may be ...) to think about this idea
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
Hi everyone, motivated by Orm's proposal to make arrowed accidental glyphs available, I have started a few experiments with the feta mf-sources. They seem to be quite promising, and I think that we will soon be able to provide the "arrowed" style as an alternative -- for a suitable meaning of "soon", though, since Orm and I are both rather busy at the moment. However, in the process of playing around there have arisen a few questions. They are currently mostly with regard to the actual glyph design (I haven't tampered much with the engraving code yet). For purposes of illustration, I attached a small example of the glyphs in (one of) their current preliminary shape(s). Please note that the arrowheads of the flat signs are larger (resp. smaller when pointing down) than those of the sharp signs because their size is currently computed from the width of the stem. But since the design is entirely parametrized, it is no problem to change it. I will do that as soon as I have a precise idea of their final size. Here are my questions: 1) Are there any general guidelines or restrictions w.r.t. the overall design of the arrows (e.g., regarding size, shape, etc.)? Is it sufficient if they are aesthetically pleasing and go well with the usual accidental glyphs? 2) I thought about setting the length of the arrow shafts in such a way that the arrowheads are placed either completely _between_ two staff lines or _on_ the lines, depending on the corresponding position of the alteration sign (more or less as in the example). Another possibility is to always avoid staff lines, which probably wouldn't look too bad either. But then the distances betweeen the accidentals and the arrowheads would vary, and the code would have to be adapted so that it takes the position of the accidental into account. Opinions? 3) How about the size? To increase readability, I think the arrowhead should fit completely between two staff lines so that it would be about as large as those attached to the sharp signs in the example. But I might be wrong. (They seem a bit "invisible" that way when seen from further away.) 4) What do I need to bear in mind during the design w.r.t. collision avoidance and similar issues? How do the corresponding algorithms determine the overall size of the glyph? 5) Another related thought: It is probably not too hard to adapt the code so that the length of the arrow shaft is not fixed but can be increased or decreased arbitrarily "on the fly". This might be used by other code to avoid collisions. But I have the feeling that this as unnecessary and would be an overkill. Agree? 6) As an aside: When the "test" parameter in the mf/*.mf files is set to a nonzero value, metafont prints staff lines, too (for testing purposes). However, I experienced that the arrowhead seemed to touch or even cross them in the *.dvi file produced by gftodvi, but after compiling lilypond and viewing the pdf output, this turned out not to be the case. Is this an inherent problem or can it be fixed somehow? Well, I think that's it for now. I have a few more questions in mind regarding Jürgen's proposal of including "layers" or "cascades" of styles but I think they will need a bit more time to crystallize out. Only one further question for now: 7) Since I have never used quartertones and other microtones myself: Is there a difference between, say, a sharp sign with arrow down and a natural sign with arrow up? As far as I understand it, both denote a quartertone above the note they are attached to, right? Would it be desireable to use both of them simultaneously? (If I am not missing something, this might cause a syntax problem when the cascaded approach is used.) Oh, and another thing regarding Han-Wen's recent reply to one of my emails: >> The recent microtone improvements needed a much more flexible way to >> map pitches onto symbols, and it seems superfluous to have two >> mechanisms for setting glyphname at the same time. It would be >> possible to have a mechanism to set the alist based on the style >> property, but I thought it would be overkill. Please correct me if I am wrong, but IMHO the "style" syntax is much more intuitive and easy to use (in particular for newcomers), especially if the final goal is towards a cascaded approach similar to what Jürgen proposed. Of course, internally there should be only one _mechanism_ to choose the glyphs but I think that being able to set the alists by using the style property in the _syntax_ is highly desirable because it increases readability of the *.ly files and does not require the user to know what happens "under the hood". Of course, strictly speaking, if one simply follows the examples in the docs and sets the alists accordingly, this doesn't require any further knowledge either, but somehow it doesn't _feel_ right to have to do so :). Maybe it is just me. Anyway, would you have any objections if I tried some time (whenever that may be ...) to think about this idea of using
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: . So it seems that the use of "Accidental #'style" is deprecated and one should set the alteration-alist directly. (But changing the style property still works in v2.11.13, even if I don't know why, given that I couldn't find the code handling it). What is the reason for this? To me the former notation seems much more intuitive and easy to use. The recent microtone improvements needed a much more flexible way to map pitches onto symbols, and it seems superfluous to have two mechanisms for setting glyphname at the same time. It would be possible to have a mechanism to set the alist based on the style property, but I thought it would be overkill. Maybe I should re-propose an idea that I posted maybe 5 years ago, but which was considered overkill at that time. Styles could be defined in a cascaded way. Say, there is an Accidental style "default" that just maps the standard non-microtonal accidentals to the modern accidental glyphs. The style should be however undefined for microtonal accidentals. Now, suppose that there is another style "arrow-microtonals" that only maps microtonal accidentals to arrow-style glyphs, but keeps silent on non-microtonal accidentals. Then it would be nice for the lily user to compose a style by setting a list of such predefined styles: "\override Accidental #'style = #'(arrow-microtonals default)". That is, for each accidental, lily should first search in the "arrow-microtonals" mapping if the acciental is mapped to some glyph. If no glyph is defined in this mapping, lily should look at the next mapping "default". That is, you get a combination of standard modern accidentals with arrowed microtonals. There is one downside: If the style "default" defines only the glyphs for non-microtonal accidentals, one always has to explicitly set a microtonal style, if microtonals are to be used. In other ways, the value for the style property tends to become a long list. In order to fix this downside, one may also allow a style to "import" further styles. For example, suppose accidental style "standard" implicitly imports "non-arrow-microtonals". That is, if you set "\override Accidental #'style = #'(default)", you also implicitly get non-arrow-microtonal accidentals, just as if you would have said "\override Accidental #'style = #'(default non-arrow-microtonals)". Note that you still can say "\override Accidental #'style = #'(arrow-microtonals default)". This will effectively override the non-arrowed microtonals that are implicit in the default style with arrowed microtonals, because the arrowed microtonals mapping occurs earlier in the list. Another downside of this approach could be performance, since each glyph lookup would result in iterating through nested scheme lists. Maybe, a sophisticated caching or precomputing approach could alleviate any performance issues. No, unfortunately I have currently no time to work on this :-(. These are just generic thoughts... Greetings, Juergen ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: Maximilian Albert escreveu: . So it seems that the use of "Accidental #'style" is deprecated and one should set the alteration-alist directly. (But changing the style property still works in v2.11.13, even if I don't know why, given that I couldn't find the code handling it). What is the reason for this? To me the former notation seems much more intuitive and easy to use. The recent microtone improvements needed a much more flexible way to map pitches onto symbols, and it seems superfluous to have two mechanisms for setting glyphname at the same time. It would be possible to have a mechanism to set the alist based on the style property, but I thought it would be overkill. Among other things I use Lilypond for, I transcribe Byzantine chant, which, rather than being based on quarter-tones, is based on sixth-tones. (Actually it's based on twelfth-tones, but it's rare to encounter an odd number of twelfths.) The arrow accidentals are perfect for this since a natural with a down-arrow can indicate a lowering by a sixth-tone, while a flat with an up-arrow can indicate a lowering by two sixth-tones, etc. I'd like to be able to translate this accurately into midi output. Is there already a mechanism in place for associating a microtonal relationship with the elements in an alteration-alist, or is this just a pipe dream? --Daniel ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
Maximilian Albert escreveu: > Orm Finnendahl schrieb: > >> thanks for pointing that out. That's exactly along the lines I was >> thinking. Is anybody capable of doing the scheme/lilypond code? I >> don't know Metafont yet but I think I could handle that part and throw >> in the glyphs (they are currently PS Type1). > > Well, I'd be delighted to give it a try because this sounds exactly like > the kind of rather easy task which merely distracts the core team from > doing more difficult and really important stuff but gives newcomers like > me a chance to play around a little with the code and possibly even make > a useful contribution. Exactly. > . So it seems that the use of "Accidental #'style" is deprecated and one > should set the alteration-alist directly. (But changing the style > property still works in v2.11.13, even if I don't know why, given that I > couldn't find the code handling it). What is the reason for this? To me > the former notation seems much more intuitive and easy to use. The recent microtone improvements needed a much more flexible way to map pitches onto symbols, and it seems superfluous to have two mechanisms for setting glyphname at the same time. It would be possible to have a mechanism to set the alist based on the style property, but I thought it would be overkill. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen LilyPond Software Design -- Code for Music Notation http://www.lilypond-design.com ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
I don't really see the problem. What you already have proposed is to use property settings to change between the different styles. To save some typing, it will then be easy to add macros such as \arrowQuarterToneAccidentals (please make up something shorter) and \...whatever, to easily change between these different styles. Of course, the properties to specify the note head style and the accidental style will be separate, so there's no coupling between them (unless you want to make macros that set both at the same time). /Mats Orm Finnendahl wrote: Hi, we use additional simple up/down arrows placed left to normal accidentals, giving a concise way to specify the complete eighth tone scale. The glyphs are actually included in the font. This would make even more changing of alteration syntax necessary, though. I don't mind to be able to combine both ways of specifying microtones within one score, but I wouldn't know, where to stop. Apart from Victor's proposed signs there also exist blackened accidentals... The last thing I had in mind was starting another "bikeshed", how Han-Wen put it. -- Orm Am 28. Januar 2007, 14:20 Uhr (-0500) schrieb v!ctor [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I agree %100 with the addition of accidentals with arrows. However, I also think that both, the standard 1/4 and 3/4 tone signs Lilypond already has and the new ones should both be accessible, and, ideally, within the same "notehead-style". Otherwise combining them in a single score would require one to be changing styles inside the score, which would not be ideal in that case. Since we are into adding new accidental signs, I would also actually like the inclusion of arrows (up and down) not only the stadard accidentals Orm suggests, but also on the 1/4 and 3/4 sharp and flat signs lilypond already has. This would allow for a finer pitch resolution. Here's a png of what i'm thinking. Pay no attention to the style though; this is secondary. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel -- = Mats Bengtsson Signal Processing Signals, Sensors and Systems Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM Sweden Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463 Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe = ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
Hi, we use additional simple up/down arrows placed left to normal accidentals, giving a concise way to specify the complete eighth tone scale. The glyphs are actually included in the font. This would make even more changing of alteration syntax necessary, though. I don't mind to be able to combine both ways of specifying microtones within one score, but I wouldn't know, where to stop. Apart from Victor's proposed signs there also exist blackened accidentals... The last thing I had in mind was starting another "bikeshed", how Han-Wen put it. -- Orm Am 28. Januar 2007, 14:20 Uhr (-0500) schrieb v!ctor [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > I agree %100 with the addition of accidentals with arrows. However, I also > think that both, the standard 1/4 and 3/4 tone signs Lilypond already has > and the new ones should both be accessible, and, ideally, within the same > "notehead-style". Otherwise combining them in a single score would require > one to be changing styles inside the score, which would not be ideal in that > case. > Since we are into adding new accidental signs, I would also actually like > the inclusion of arrows (up and down) not only the stadard accidentals Orm > suggests, but also on the 1/4 and 3/4 sharp and flat signs lilypond already > has. This would allow for a finer pitch resolution. > Here's a png of what i'm thinking. Pay no attention to the style though; > this is secondary. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
I agree %100 with the addition of accidentals with arrows. However, I also think that both, the standard 1/4 and 3/4 tone signs Lilypond already has and the new ones should both be accessible, and, ideally, within the same "notehead-style". Otherwise combining them in a single score would require one to be changing styles inside the score, which would not be ideal in that case. Since we are into adding new accidental signs, I would also actually like the inclusion of arrows (up and down) not only the stadard accidentals Orm suggests, but also on the 1/4 and 3/4 sharp and flat signs lilypond already has. This would allow for a finer pitch resolution. Here's a png of what i'm thinking. Pay no attention to the style though; this is secondary. .. ideas? Victor On 1/27/07, Trevor Bača <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 1/27/07, Orm Finnendahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am 27. Januar 2007, 12:06 Uhr (-0600) schrieb Trevor Bača: > > > > Question: would it be possible to have access to *both* sets of > > glyphs? It seems to me that I've seen both types of glyphs mixed > > together in single scores; usually the existing quartertone glyphs > > show exact quartertone alterations while the arrowed glyphs show > > approximate alterations. > > > > Well, my proposal meant to be completely backwards compatible. I > thought about something similar to the "notehead-style" property like > saying > > \override #'accidental-style = "arrowed" > > for getting the arrowed accidentals and > > \revert #'accidental-style > > for switching back. Ah, OK. I very much vote yes. I've wanted the arrowed glyphs for quite some time and would like to see them as part of the standard distribution. -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user accidentals.png Description: PNG image ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
Orm Finnendahl schrieb: > thanks for pointing that out. That's exactly along the lines I was > thinking. Is anybody capable of doing the scheme/lilypond code? I > don't know Metafont yet but I think I could handle that part and throw > in the glyphs (they are currently PS Type1). Well, I'd be delighted to give it a try because this sounds exactly like the kind of rather easy task which merely distracts the core team from doing more difficult and really important stuff but gives newcomers like me a chance to play around a little with the code and possibly even make a useful contribution. So I'd very much like to have a look at it. (Shouldn't be too hard since it even seems to resemble a lot the small changing of the NoteHead styles I just submitted). If I am unlucky, however, it may take a few days before I get around to it due to an upcoming examination and my thesis lagging way behind my plans. So if anyone else is faster - go ahead. This is just to tell you that if nobody is interested, I'll most probably give it a try. The quick glance I had last night seems to suggest that apart from adding the metafont source of the new accidentals (which Orm proposed to do) one would simply have to add a new alteration-glyph-name-alist to scm/output-lib.scm and adjust the code where this is set according to the Accidental's style property. However, greping the source code I was not able to find this particular piece of code. Does anyone have a hint? Oops, update: I just found that in python/convertrules.py all occurrences of, Accidental #'style = ... are changed into Accidental #'glyph-name-alist = #alteration-...-name-alist . So it seems that the use of "Accidental #'style" is deprecated and one should set the alteration-alist directly. (But changing the style property still works in v2.11.13, even if I don't know why, given that I couldn't find the code handling it). What is the reason for this? To me the former notation seems much more intuitive and easy to use. BTW, the alteration alist of the default accidentals is called "standard-alteration-glyph-name-alist" instead of "alteration-default-glyph-name-alist". This is handled incorrectly in python/convertrules.py so far. But I'll also repost that in a separate message (if it has not yet been reported). Max ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
Hi all,
thanks for pointing that out. That's exactly along the lines I was
thinking. Is anybody capable of doing the scheme/lilypond code? I
don't know Metafont yet but I think I could handle that part and throw
in the glyphs (they are currently PS Type1).
--
Orm
Am 28. Januar 2007, 05:19 Uhr (+0100) schrieb Juergen Reuter:
> Hi, all!
>
> Please note that we already have a style property for Accidental grobs.
> For example, for yielding ancient notation accidentals, you may say:
>
> \override Accidental #'style = #'vaticana
>
> Hence, the natural way is to introduce another style for
> different microtonal glyphs. They are not present in standard western
> europe ancient notation and therefore do not collide with ancient
> accidental styles. Hence, it is natural to introduce a new Accidental
> style, say, for example:
>
> \override Accidental #'style = #'arrowed
>
> or maybe even better
>
> \override Accidental #'style = #'default-arrowed
>
> to indicate that the non-microtonal accidentals are still to be taken
> from the default font, i.e. default and default-arrowed only differ in
> microtonal glyphs.
>
> Unfortunately, the code for checking and handling the Accidental style
> property is still hardcoded in lily/accidental.cc in method
>
> string
> Accidental_interface::get_fontcharname (string style, int alteration)
>
> rather than being handled at runtime through scheme code, as is done with
> notehead style in the scheme function note-head::calc-glyph-name in file
> scm/output-lib.scm.
>
> The input syntax ("aeh", "aesih", "gisih", etc.) should probably be
> independent from the above selection of glyphs, as we usually try to
> strictly separate musical content and engraving style. Considering this
> principle, maybe the right thing is -- similarly to including proper
> internationalized notenames -- the user to \include his/her favourite
> naming scheme at the beginning of the user's .ly file.
>
> Greetings,
> Juergen
>
>
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Trevor Ba?~Ma wrote:
>
> >On 1/27/07, Orm Finnendahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Am 27. Januar 2007, 12:06 Uhr (-0600) schrieb Trevor Bača:
> >>>
> >>> Question: would it be possible to have access to *both* sets of
> >>> glyphs? It seems to me that I've seen both types of glyphs mixed
> >>> together in single scores; usually the existing quartertone glyphs
> >>> show exact quartertone alterations while the arrowed glyphs show
> >>> approximate alterations.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Well, my proposal meant to be completely backwards compatible. I
> >>thought about something similar to the "notehead-style" property like
> >>saying
> >>
> >>\override #'accidental-style = "arrowed"
> >>
> >>for getting the arrowed accidentals and
> >>
> >>\revert #'accidental-style
> >>
> >>for switching back.
> >
> >Ah, OK. I very much vote yes. I've wanted the arrowed glyphs for quite
> >some time and would like to see them as part of the standard
> >distribution.
> >
> >
> >
> ___
> 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: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Juergen Reuter wrote: ... Unfortunately, the code for checking and handling the Accidental style property is still hardcoded in lily/accidental.cc in method string Accidental_interface::get_fontcharname (string style, int alteration) rather than being handled at runtime through scheme code, as is done with notehead style in the scheme function note-head::calc-glyph-name in file scm/output-lib.scm. ... Ooops, I just recognized that accidental handling obviously has changed during the last two months. Accidentals are now indeed handled via scheme; see scm/output-lib.scm for details. Greetings, Juergen ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
Hi, all!
Please note that we already have a style property for Accidental grobs.
For example, for yielding ancient notation accidentals, you may say:
\override Accidental #'style = #'vaticana
Hence, the natural way is to introduce another style for
different microtonal glyphs. They are not present in standard western
europe ancient notation and therefore do not collide with ancient
accidental styles. Hence, it is natural to introduce a new Accidental
style, say, for example:
\override Accidental #'style = #'arrowed
or maybe even better
\override Accidental #'style = #'default-arrowed
to indicate that the non-microtonal accidentals are still to be taken
from the default font, i.e. default and default-arrowed only differ in
microtonal glyphs.
Unfortunately, the code for checking and handling the Accidental style
property is still hardcoded in lily/accidental.cc in method
string
Accidental_interface::get_fontcharname (string style, int alteration)
rather than being handled at runtime through scheme code, as is done with
notehead style in the scheme function note-head::calc-glyph-name in file
scm/output-lib.scm.
The input syntax ("aeh", "aesih", "gisih", etc.) should probably be
independent from the above selection of glyphs, as we usually try to
strictly separate musical content and engraving style. Considering this
principle, maybe the right thing is -- similarly to including proper
internationalized notenames -- the user to \include his/her favourite
naming scheme at the beginning of the user's .ly file.
Greetings,
Juergen
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Trevor Ba�~Ma wrote:
On 1/27/07, Orm Finnendahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am 27. Januar 2007, 12:06 Uhr (-0600) schrieb Trevor Bača:
>
> Question: would it be possible to have access to *both* sets of
> glyphs? It seems to me that I've seen both types of glyphs mixed
> together in single scores; usually the existing quartertone glyphs
> show exact quartertone alterations while the arrowed glyphs show
> approximate alterations.
>
Well, my proposal meant to be completely backwards compatible. I
thought about something similar to the "notehead-style" property like
saying
\override #'accidental-style = "arrowed"
for getting the arrowed accidentals and
\revert #'accidental-style
for switching back.
Ah, OK. I very much vote yes. I've wanted the arrowed glyphs for quite
some time and would like to see them as part of the standard
distribution.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
On 1/27/07, Orm Finnendahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Am 27. Januar 2007, 12:06 Uhr (-0600) schrieb Trevor Bača: > > Question: would it be possible to have access to *both* sets of > glyphs? It seems to me that I've seen both types of glyphs mixed > together in single scores; usually the existing quartertone glyphs > show exact quartertone alterations while the arrowed glyphs show > approximate alterations. > Well, my proposal meant to be completely backwards compatible. I thought about something similar to the "notehead-style" property like saying \override #'accidental-style = "arrowed" for getting the arrowed accidentals and \revert #'accidental-style for switching back. Ah, OK. I very much vote yes. I've wanted the arrowed glyphs for quite some time and would like to see them as part of the standard distribution. -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
Am 27. Januar 2007, 12:06 Uhr (-0600) schrieb Trevor Bača: > > Question: would it be possible to have access to *both* sets of > glyphs? It seems to me that I've seen both types of glyphs mixed > together in single scores; usually the existing quartertone glyphs > show exact quartertone alterations while the arrowed glyphs show > approximate alterations. > Well, my proposal meant to be completely backwards compatible. I thought about something similar to the "notehead-style" property like saying \override #'accidental-style = "arrowed" for getting the arrowed accidentals and \revert #'accidental-style for switching back. -- Orm P.S.: Actually there are existing other styles (the three-quarter flat normally is written with a normal flat sign and a mirrored flat; sometimes a black (filled) flat sign is used to indicate quarter tones, sometimes exactly this notation is used for indicating eighth tones in combination with lilyponds default signs for quartertones etc...) That's one of the reasons I always found the arrows most clear (in combination with arrows without accidentals for indicating eigth tone alterations...) But I don't want to open yet another bike-shed; i would just like to get my preferred style available... ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
On 1/27/07, Orm Finnendahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, for a while I wanted to suggest adding the option of using a different style for microtone accidentals. I personally prefer the use of up or down arrows on extended vertical lines of the standard accidentals (see attached example). The advantage of this style is a better differentiation of enharmonic spelling which makes reading and performance better suited to the way those pitches are produced on different instruments or the musical context (like in the spelling of chords). In this case an extended syntax for the accidentals would make sense. I give two examples with the different enharmonic spellings and the proposed lilypond syntax: 1. pitch: quarter tone below a glyphslilypond syntax - "a" with natural with arrow down aeh "a" with flat sign with arrow up aesih "g" with sharp sign with arrow up gisih 2. pitch: quarter tone above a glyphslilypond syntax - "a" with natural with arrow upaih "a" with sharp sign with arrow down aiseh "b" with flat sign with arrow downbeseh I designed the glyphs in a postscript font and can provide them if anybody is interested (they stem from a very old version of the Petrucci font and probably will have to get adjusted to the more beautiful Feta glyphs, but the basic work is done). What do you think? Question: would it be possible to have access to *both* sets of glyphs? It seems to me that I've seen both types of glyphs mixed together in single scores; usually the existing quartertone glyphs show exact quartertone alterations while the arrowed glyphs show approximate alterations. I actually had never considered substituting arrowed-accidetals for the existing glyphs, but thinking about it now I can see exactly why you would want to do so ... they really do have a cleaner look ... So, I definitely vote for the incusion of the new arrowed-accidentals and, if possible, I'd like to continue to have access to the existing quartertone accidentals for use at the same time. (I don't know what this says about the input syntax, though ...) -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: proposal: second style for quartertone accidentals
Am 27. Januar 2007, 15:33 Uhr (+0100) schrieb Ole Schmidt: > Hi, > > I did not understand if these accidentals are already implemented so > that I can use them? If not, I'am interested strongly in using them, > they are indeed much easier to read and to handle... No, They aren't implemented yet. This was more a poll, how many people would be interested in it, as I find the current quarter note glyphs impractical. It was also meant as a question to the developers what they think about implementing it. I don't think it is very hard to implement. -- Orm ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
