Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Michael Hendry]

> On 27 May 2016, at 00:53, Wols Lists  wrote:
> 
> On 26/05/16 10:43, Olivier Biot wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, 26 May 2016, Michael Hendry > > wrote:
>> 
>>I seem to have struck an interesting chord, here!
>> 
>> 
>> Definitely!
>> 
>> 
>>Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who
>>claim that when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E)
>>their experience is of brightness, while the flat keys make for a
>>more sombre sound. I’ve even heard in a radio interview that this
>>applies to F# and Gb (the one bright, the other dull).
>> 
>> 
>> I experience the same from a string player's perspective. But in my
>> humble opinion it is a combination of 2 factors. One depends on
>> harmonics induced in the instrument played, the other is a more
>> subjective element: often 'sharper' keys tend to play music at a higher
>> pitch too, which results to brightening of the music played. Maybe
>> because a lot of written music wanders around the natural scale of the
>> clef, which goes up 1 full tone per 2 extra sharps (circle of fifths).
> 
> Don't forget, G# and Fb are NOT the same note.

This is where my lack of formal musical education shows me up - I’m a 
self-taught amateur guitarist. F# and Gb look and sound the same on the guitar 
(and on the piano), but it seems that this is because these instruments have 
been constructed to sound equally bad in all keys. Other instruments are 
constructed and tuned so as to sound good in certain keys and not so good in 
others, so it’s feasible that an orchestra could sound better playing in sharp 
keys.

Other mysteries (to me!) may also be explained in a similar way:

Why aren’t trumpets and clarinets made a bit shorter, so that they don’t have 
to have transposed parts?

Why is the G string on my guitar the one I most commonly check because although 
it sounds perfectly in tune in the context of a G major chord, it can sound out 
of tune in other contexts?

Michael

> And once you move away
> from percussion instruments (yes, the piano IS a percussion instrument)
> most instruments can tweak their pitch. Okay, instruments like the
> orchestral strings and the trombone can play an infinitely variable
> pitch, but - in the hands of a good player - pretty any much instrument
> can vary the pitch to some extent. I've heard of brass players who could
> "bend" the pitch by over a tone!
> 
> So any orchestra or band will tend NOT to play "well tempered", and that
> could explain the brightness or dullness.
> 
> Cheers,
> Wol
> 
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: slur corehack

[tisimst]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Flaming Hakama by Elaine [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n191024...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

>  ...
>

Ok. That's probably enough back and forth between you two. If you'd like to
continue to rant at each other, please take it offline. Thanks!

On a related note, I've found that looking at the various interface links
shown at the bottom of the grob properties pages can lead to otherwise
unknown definitions to cryptic properties. For example, on the Slur
properties page (http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/internals/slur),
you'll see the major properties' default values. However, the "details"
property is just a list with no explanation. What to do now? You'll notice
that there are a handful of interfaces shown at the bottom, including:
- grob-interface
- outside-staff-interface
- slur-interface
- spanner-interface

The properties come from these interfaces. If you click on the
slur-interface link (
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/internals/slur_002dinterface),
then you'll happily notice that each of the "detail" properties have a
description. Whoa! I think you'll find this little tactic helpful in the
future. Should there be a section about how to handle all the intricacies
of slurs? Maybe... Probably? Either way, you now at least have more
understanding as to what the properties mean. It may lead one of YOU to
write the section about mastering slurs in every way... Or maybe a
tutorial...

Best,
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Re-slur-corehack-tp191024p191025.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re:slur corehack

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

The main thing that is irritating about this exchange
is that you seem invested in maintaining low-quality documentation.

What is your motivation for that?

I'm trying to help make lilypond more accessible to potential new users,
and also to help current users improve their workflows and results.


On that page it says: "In other words, the \shape function can act as
> either a \once\override command or a \tweak command depending on
> whether the item argument is a grob name, like ?Slur?, or a music
> expression, like ?(?."
>
> I guess "tweak" is spelled "shape" here.
>

Unless all your curves require the same deltas, the use of \override is not
a practical solution to global adjustments.  So, although this sentence
gives you a clue that you can apply \shape globally, that still doesn't
make it useful.

The \shape technique is a different technique, that yields different
results, than using overrides on the ratio and maximum-height (or any other
grob properties).

(Unless deltas could be specified as percentages, and not absolute offsets.)


>
> > What was your point?
>
> It got snipped: "The inefficiency or inconsistency of search engines
> is hardly a criticism that can be aimed at LP or its docs."
>

You can't find something if it doesn't exist.

That is not a search engine problem, it is a lack of documentation problem.

If the document existed, it would turn up in search results.



> For some reason, your search took you to a different page from mine,
> and this page was reportedly unsatisfactory.
>

Yes, everything I found (and that you found) is unsatisfactory (we found
the same pages).

You have yet to present a document that describes the ratio, height-limit
and free-head-distance techniques.  Until you do, my observations stands,
that this is not yet documented.

Saying "transfer of learning" is just another way of saying it is not
documented.



> I snipped your "The override page doesn't even mention slurs" because
> Simon covers that with "transfer of learning". I don't think it would
> be possible to cover all the individual functions of \override.
>

Who suggested that all possible functions of \override be covered?

Slurs and slur issues are not edge cases.  This is common music notation.

I am suggesting that techniques related to modifying slurs in general (as
opposed to one-at-a-time) be documented somewhere. If you read my suggested
addition, it was not on the override page, but rather on the modify shapes
page.

Are you really saying that a modify shapes page is not a relevant place to
discuss techniques for modifying slurs?


> The shape of curves affects the overall look of the page.  You would want
> > to affect them globally to achieve a "house style".
>
> Yes, once you understand how to affect individual aspects, then you
> can design a house style. An apprentice music engraver would learn to
> perfect using each punch before getting to design the overall style.
>

You are again ignoring that the approach of \shape, while it can be applied
globally and not just one-at-a-time, is not an appropriate tool for this
type of modification, since curves of different dimensions (for example, a
slur between two adjacent notes one tone apart, versus a slur across
several measures spanning an octave) will not be uniformly improved by
specific deltas.

Whereas modifying the default parameters does achieve more scalable results.

Also, we're not in the 18th century any more.  There is no "skill" to
executing an engraving, there is only taste in choosing something you like.

Since we're using computers, it is essentially the same amount of work to
adjust things globally as it is to adjust a single curve.  Actually, less,
since you only have to do the global adjustment once.


More importantly, you cannot evaluate a style by looking at one curve.
That's like trying to pick a document font by looking at how one word
looks.  You need to look at the entire document (or at least a page, or
relevant flows) in order to evaluate your choice for things like
readability and density.

Plus, did I mention that the \shape and overrides of ratio/maximum-height
do not perform the same functions?  So, even if you do perfect one slur,
there is no way to apply that globally (in a useful way--sure, you can
apply the \shape as an override, but it won't give you useful results.)


> Or, simply choose a starting point that fixes most of the issues with the
> > curves, before proceeding to the tedious work of one-at-a-time
> techniques.
>
> My experience of learning is to start with specific examples and then
> generalise them, so I remain unconvinced (from a learning angle).
>

Documentation is not all about you.  It is about many people.

There are different styles of learning.  It seems weird to me to suggest
that because you might not benefit from something, that no one else would.


I was troubled because, like others possibly, I wasn't sure of your
> distinguishing setting defaults within, say, ily files and s

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Wols Lists]

On 26/05/16 10:43, Olivier Biot wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thursday, 26 May 2016, Michael Hendry  > wrote:
> 
> I seem to have struck an interesting chord, here!
> 
> 
> Definitely!
>  
> 
> Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who
> claim that when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E)
> their experience is of brightness, while the flat keys make for a
> more sombre sound. I’ve even heard in a radio interview that this
> applies to F# and Gb (the one bright, the other dull).
> 
> 
> I experience the same from a string player's perspective. But in my
> humble opinion it is a combination of 2 factors. One depends on
> harmonics induced in the instrument played, the other is a more
> subjective element: often 'sharper' keys tend to play music at a higher
> pitch too, which results to brightening of the music played. Maybe
> because a lot of written music wanders around the natural scale of the
> clef, which goes up 1 full tone per 2 extra sharps (circle of fifths).

Don't forget, G# and Fb are NOT the same note. And once you move away
from percussion instruments (yes, the piano IS a percussion instrument)
most instruments can tweak their pitch. Okay, instruments like the
orchestral strings and the trombone can play an infinitely variable
pitch, but - in the hands of a good player - pretty any much instrument
can vary the pitch to some extent. I've heard of brass players who could
"bend" the pitch by over a tone!

So any orchestra or band will tend NOT to play "well tempered", and that
could explain the brightness or dullness.

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Wols Lists]

On 26/05/16 08:34, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> > "Perfect pitch" is a sham.  [...]
> It seems that you don't know the facts very well.  Absolute pitch is
> *not* related to being a `better' musician.  In fact, it's not even
> related to music.  Have a look at the Wikipedia article; it gives a
> nice overview.
> 
> In general, I consider having an absolute pitch a burden.  My life
> would be *much* easier if I hadn't to do transposition all the time.
> 
I think what Andrew is describing is *relative* pitch. Often confused
with Perfect Pitch.

Perfect Pitch is something innate, iirc. You have it, or you don't, and
it's obvious by about the age of 5 at the latest. Most importantly, it
does NOT appear to be learnt.

Relative Pitch, on the other hand, IS learned. I can pitch a Bb just
like that, not surprisingly :-) Oddly enough, I can also pitch a G, it's
the first note of "God Save the Queen". I should then be able to work
out any note by comparing it to those two reference notes, except I'm
not that good a musician.

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: slur corehack

[David Wright]

On Thu 26 May 2016 at 00:31:59 (-0700), Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote:
> > > I would say that, on the contrary, \tweak and \override are not
> > documented.
> > > At least, not well enough to be useful for use with slurs.
> > >
> > > In the case of slurs, searching for "lilypond slurs tweak", the
> > > documentation that comes up describes how to tweak slurs relative to
> > text,
> > > not how to tweak the actual curves themselves.
> > >
> > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/learning/outside_002dstaff-objects
> >
> > I typed that string into google and the top hit was
> >
> > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/modifying-shapes
> >
> > which is the page you've quoted from in this thread.
> >
> 
> Yes, and if you paid attention, or read that page carefully,
> then you would see that these techniques are not presented on that page
> (nor any of the other pages you cited.).

On that page it says: "In other words, the \shape function can act as
either a \once\override command or a \tweak command depending on
whether the item argument is a grob name, like “Slur”, or a music
expression, like “(”."

I guess "tweak" is spelled "shape" here.

> What was your point?

It got snipped: "The inefficiency or inconsistency of search engines
is hardly a criticism that can be aimed at LP or its docs."

For some reason, your search took you to a different page from mine,
and this page was reportedly unsatisfactory.

I snipped your "The override page doesn't even mention slurs" because
Simon covers that with "transfer of learning". I don't think it would
be possible to cover all the individual functions of \override.
Possibly what's not covered well enough (I still reserve judgment
as it might be my own failing) is how to express individual \set and
\overrides as \layout { \context { ... overrides to be applied
throughout a score. (Helped, but not helped, by simplifications of
the syntax: I like the simplifications, but it can make the search
strings for hunting down examples trickier.)

> > > Rather, I am suggesting that the approach of changing all slurs' default
> > > values should be described in addition to (and probably ahead of) the
> > > approach of changing a single curve's control points.
> >
> > I don't understand why you'd describe how to change every foo before
> > you'd described the effect of making changes to one instance.
> >
> 
> The shape of curves affects the overall look of the page.  You would want
> to affect them globally to achieve a "house style".

Yes, once you understand how to affect individual aspects, then you
can design a house style. An apprentice music engraver would learn to
perfect using each punch before getting to design the overall style.

> Or, simply choose a starting point that fixes most of the issues with the
> curves, before proceeding to the tedious work of one-at-a-time techniques.

My experience of learning is to start with specific examples and then
generalise them, so I remain unconvinced (from a learning angle).

> Plus, while you can achieve similar results using the different
> techniques,these different approaches are not comparable:  one is
> manipulating differences in control points from the default algorithm, the
> other is affecting the values used in the underlying algorithm itself.

AIUI from this thread, the former involves scheme and the latter can
be done in LP. If I am wrong, then presumably examples of the former,
coded in LP, will appear in the thread. That would please me, as I'm
not a scheme coder.

> > And is it sensible to try to teach:
> > [...]
> > before teaching:
> > [...]
> > ?
> 
> No one is suggesting that.
> 
> Are you trolling?

Well, it was your first example, and it troubled me. Changes that get
embedded into the underlying code can be difficult to cope with at the
level of LP source. (An OT example would be the changes in horizontal
spacing of notes that has changed significantly between LP versions.)

I was troubled because, like others possibly, I wasn't sure of your
distinguishing setting defaults within, say, ily files and setting
them in scm files (a closed book to most LP users, I suspect).

> > > For now, here are some proof-of concept intermediate versions from the
> > > piece that spurred me to try this approach.
> >
> ...
> 
> > > My final version is not ideal to compare since the line breaking is
> > vastly
> > > different.
> >
> 
> 
> > Comparing appearances is pointless unless you either put extra \breaks
> > into (1) and (2), probably easier, or manually set fewer in (3),
> > probably harder. Oh, and keep the notes the same.
> >
> 
> So, it seems you either have problems with reading comprehension, or
> attitude.

Your thesis is that LP's slurs are too shallow, and you've provided
an example. Unfortunately, I feel like someone being asked to make an
artistic judgment on the curvature of the Mona Lisa's smile, given an
image having the wrong aspect ratio.

Trying to be objective rather than subjective: i

Re: footnote counter

[Paul]

Hi Jeffrey,

I did a search on the source code and found: lily/footnote-engraver.cc 
(along with several test files) so I would look there.  I would as 
assume that it contains the function you're looking for.  (I've found 
that searching the source code is usually a good way to find things like 
this.)


FWIW, the way I would approach this would probably be to write a custom 
footnote engraver in scheme that does what you want.  In user-land you 
could remove LilyPond's footnote engraver and "consist" your own scheme 
engraver in its place.  The LSR has examples of custom scheme engravers.


That probably raises more questions than it answers, but hopefully it 
helps point you in the right direction.


Cheers,
-Paul


On 05/26/2016 12:35 AM, Jeffery Shivers wrote:

I am trying to find the following two things regarding footnotes:

1) How might I retrieve the accumulated number of footnotes either for 
an entire document/section, or at least for a single page?


2) In the notation doc 
[http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf], pg. 481, 
the 'mark' element describes that the count is automatically reset on 
each page that contains a footnote. Where is that function written; 
and how could it be overwritten (specifically to *not* automatically 
reset ever, or (additionally) to only reset when explicitly instructed)?


Thanks!
Jeffery


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Hans Åberg]

> On 26 May 2016, at 16:48, Kieren MacMillan  
> wrote:
> 
>> "Perfect pitch" is a sham.
> 
> For discussion:
> 
> (and several related videos of the same young boy)

A video for those without absolute pitch: trying to identify which version of a 
well known melody is in the original key. Tests have shown that people are 
pretty good at that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCJGkUVmKm4



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Hans Åberg]

> On 26 May 2016, at 20:17, Johan Vromans  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 26 May 2016 10:48:44 -0400
> Kieren MacMillan  wrote:
> 
>> For discussion:
>> 
> 
> Provided the video is bona fide, this is merely a good example of someone
> who is capable of memorizing the 12 tones of the piano. Which, as discussed
> elsewhere in this thread, is not really perfect pitch.
> 
> For example, I cut out the "sing an A" part and played the notes through
> a sensitive tuner. The piano A was 439.3 Hz, which I attribute to the video
> recording. So I calibrated the tuner to this, and measured the boy's A. It
> was approx 435 Hz. Impressive, though. Maybe he's a reincarnated
> baroque musician?

When I measure where he marks the pitch, a few tens of seconds after the 
attack, it is pretty close to 440 Hz.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Johan Vromans]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 10:48:44 -0400
Kieren MacMillan  wrote:

> For discussion:
> 

Provided the video is bona fide, this is merely a good example of someone
who is capable of memorizing the 12 tones of the piano. Which, as discussed
elsewhere in this thread, is not really perfect pitch.

For example, I cut out the "sing an A" part and played the notes through
a sensitive tuner. The piano A was 439.3 Hz, which I attribute to the video
recording. So I calibrated the tuner to this, and measured the boy's A. It
was approx 435 Hz. Impressive, though. Maybe he's a reincarnated
baroque musician?

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[tisimst]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Kieren MacMillan [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n191005...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> > "Perfect pitch" is a sham.
>
> For discussion:
> 
> (and several related videos of the same young boy)
>
> Cheers,
> Kieren.
>

One word: ...

(i.e., I'm speechless)




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/OT-high-precision-tuner-app-tp190891p191010.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Hans Åberg]

> On 26 May 2016, at 17:40, Jacques Menu Muzhic  wrote:

> My bassoon teacher told me the same, and in particular that D major is the 
> brightest key on our instrument (440). So I asked whether it’s E flat major 
> on the baroque instrument (415).
> 
> And the answer is no, it’s D major too, because that phenomenon is relative 
> to the instrument size, not absolute.

The instruments have certain resonances, and the bassoon, though largely 
harmonic like the other orchestral instruments, has an inharmonicity in the 
midrange, which gives character, makes it stand out and hard to cover, but also 
less suitable for harmony. If there are strings present, then one cannot merely 
transpose, because they end up playing in a more distant key where one cannot 
rely on open strings which are tuned in Pythagorean.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Jacques Menu Muzhic]

> Le 26 mai 2016 à 09:57, Michael Hendry  a écrit :
> 
> 
> I seem to have struck an interesting chord, here!
> 
> Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who claim that 
> when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E) their experience is of 
> brightness, while the flat keys make for a more sombre sound. I’ve even heard 
> in a radio interview that this applies to F# and Gb (the one bright, the 
> other dull).
> 
> Michael (lighting blue touch-paper and retiring to a safe distance).

My bassoon teacher told me the same, and in particular that D major is the 
brightest key on our instrument (440). So I asked whether it’s E flat major on 
the baroque instrument (415).

And the answer is no, it’s D major too, because that phenomenon is relative to 
the instrument size, not absolute.

JM





___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: slur corehack

[Carl Sorensen]

On 5/24/16 5:41 PM, "Flaming Hakama by Elaine" 
wrote:

>Thanks for the help.
>
>I'm glad that the right way to do this is reasonably straightforward,
>this example code provided by Simon:
>
>\layout {
>  \context {
>\Voice
>\override Slur.height-limit = 5.6
>  }
>}

I think you can get a slightly more gentle fix by

\override Slur.details.free-head-distance = 1.5

I find this to be a better override to get more curvature in the slurs.
>
>
>How about something like:
>Modifying ties and slursTies, Slurs, PhrasingSlurs,
>LaissezVibrerTies and RepeatTies are all drawn as
>third-order Bézier curves.  If the shape of the tie or slur which
>is calculated automatically is not optimum, the shape may be
>modified manually in three ways:

I've just prepared a patch that implements your recommendations, although
in a slightly different way.  I've split the section to two different
sections -- Automatically modifying ties and slurs and Manually modifying
ties and slurs.  

I have not listed the properties that can be changed, because by
documentation policy we don't list such items in the Notation Reference.
If we want to have more of a tutorial on how to adjust the properties, it
belongs in the learning manual.

You can see the proposed documentation by downloading pdf pages from the
following link:

http://www.filedropper.com/modifyingcurves
  
I'd welcome feedback.

Thanks,

Carl



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Kieren MacMillan]

> "Perfect pitch" is a sham.

For discussion:

(and several related videos of the same young boy)

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Michael,

> but how do those gifted with perfect pitch cope with all this?

First off, I wouldn’t exactly call it a “gift”: it’s actually quite irritating 
at times. For example, it is essentially impossible for me to play a piece on 
an electronic piano with the “Transpose” button engaged.

As to your precise question… For me, the difference between “Baroque pitch(es)” 
and “modern pitch(es)” are small enough that I can either just adjust my ear 
for the duration of the performance, or imagine a key signature one semi-tone 
up or down to compensate for the visual conflict(s).

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[mskala]

On Thu, 26 May 2016, Michael Hendry wrote:
> Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who claim
> that when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E) their
> experience is of brightness, while the flat keys make for a more sombre
> sound. I’ve even heard in a radio interview that this applies to F# and

It seems like such a thing could easily become self-fulfilling, if a lot
of composers believe it and choose keys for their compositions according
to the mood they intend to create.  A listener who hears a lot of such
compositions and has any sensitivity at all to absolute pitch, might then
tend to automatically and unconsciously perceive such a mood difference
even in cases like the *same* composition played at two different
transpositions.

-- 
Matthew Skala
msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca People before principles.
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Hans Åberg]

> On 26 May 2016, at 09:57, Michael Hendry  wrote:

> Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who claim that 
> when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E) their experience is of 
> brightness, while the flat keys make for a more sombre sound. I’ve even heard 
> in a radio interview that this applies to F# and Gb (the one bright, the 
> other dull).

In a symphony orchestra, the string section is tuned in Pythagorean, and by 
following traditional harmony rules, can be encouraged to play in 5-limit Just 
Intonation. Moore distant keys, where there are no open strings to rely on, 
then become difficult to perform, which has in the past been used as a musical 
effect.

For fixed pitch instruments tuned in E12, like pianos, there is no difference 
though.

Also, in Pythagorean tuning, F# is higher than Gb, but it is the reverse in 
(extended) meantone tunings. If one chooses the wrong E12 enharmonically 
equivalent note in these tunings, there results a wolf interval, which is 
pretty descriptive.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Olivier Biot]

On Thursday, 26 May 2016, Johan Vromans  wrote:

> On Thu, 26 May 2016 08:57:31 +0100
> Michael Hendry > wrote:
>
> > Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who claim
> > that when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E) their
> > experience is of brightness, while the flat keys make for a more sombre
> > sound. I’ve even heard in a radio interview that this applies to F# and
> > Gb (the one bright, the other dull).
>
> Interesting...
>
> I can put a capo on the 3rd fret on my guitar and play a piece in
> (effectively) G. Now I put the capo on the 2nd fret. Does the piece sound
> dull because it's now in Gb? Or does it sound brighter because it's in F#?
>
> In my experience it sounds the same, but lower.


Try playing without capo. If at all possibleon a guitar, technically
speaking. The sympathetic resonances on the non-played strings will be
starkly diminished.

Putting a capo effectively transposes your instrument, which defies the
OP's point (and mine).

Hope this makes sense.

>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org 
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Johan Vromans]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 08:57:31 +0100
Michael Hendry  wrote:

> Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who claim
> that when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E) their
> experience is of brightness, while the flat keys make for a more sombre
> sound. I’ve even heard in a radio interview that this applies to F# and
> Gb (the one bright, the other dull).

Interesting...

I can put a capo on the 3rd fret on my guitar and play a piece in
(effectively) G. Now I put the capo on the 2nd fret. Does the piece sound
dull because it's now in Gb? Or does it sound brighter because it's in F#?

In my experience it sounds the same, but lower. 

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Olivier Biot]

On Thursday, 26 May 2016, Michael Hendry  wrote:

> I seem to have struck an interesting chord, here!


Definitely!


> Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who claim
> that when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E) their
> experience is of brightness, while the flat keys make for a more sombre
> sound. I’ve even heard in a radio interview that this applies to F# and Gb
> (the one bright, the other dull).


I experience the same from a string player's perspective. But in my humble
opinion it is a combination of 2 factors. One depends on harmonics induced
in the instrument played, the other is a more subjective element: often
'sharper' keys tend to play music at a higher pitch too, which results to
brightening of the music played. Maybe because a lot of written music
wanders around the natural scale of the clef, which goes up 1 full tone per
2 extra sharps (circle of fifths).

To get back to the former point, playing F minor (4 flats) on the cello
dulls most natural harmonics on the open strings, which results in an
eerie, almost dead color. To my ears at least.

Just my (musical) 2 cents,

Olivier

>
> Michael (lighting blue touch-paper and retiring to a safe distance).
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org 
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Page Break in Lilypond-book

[Alberto Simões]

On 16/05/16 19:32, Alberto Simões wrote:



On 16/05/16 18:50, David Wright wrote:

On Sat 14 May 2016 at 15:34:30 (+0100), Alberto Simões wrote:

> It seems that \pageBreak is not honored by Lilypond.
> I found an old post [1] that seems to state that it is needed to
> enclose each portion in a different \book block (?).
>
> Can anybody confirm? Or explain the better way to force page break
> from within a .ly file, to happen in the lilypond-book tex file?

I'm not experienced with lilypond-book, but is it as simple as
using \bookpart to make the page breaks? Or are you trying to
make \pageBreaks within a \score? I think you might need to give
more context, ie an example of the structure of your file with
the \book \bookpart \score commands, and indicating where the
page breaks are that you want to force.


I am trying to break inside a score.
In fact, my "main document" is only:

\score{
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff = "up"   \up
\new Dynamics = "dynamics" \dynamics
\new Staff = "down" \down
>>
}



This thread kind of died before I got a good answer.
As far as I could understand, the solution is to create two bookparts 
from the same music?


If I could make lilypond-book generate some kind of markup into the 
generated tex file, i might be able to post-processing with Perl.


Need to do some experiments...
Thanks
alberto

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Hans Åberg]

> On 26 May 2016, at 08:49, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:
> 
>>> Absolutely fascinating stuff but bizarre all the considerations
>>> that affect pitch over time.
>> 
>> Off topic, I know, but how do those gifted with perfect pitch cope
>> with all this?
> 
> They simply dispair.  I speak from experience :-)
> 
> To a certain extent (say, plus-minus a whole note) I can compensate
> the different pitch.  If the difference is larger, I have to transpose
> everything.

Perhaps you might try the programs mentioned before [1] that I wrote for ChucK, 
which allows one to play different tunings on the computer keyboard, to see if 
you can get used to it. A Swedish composer with absolute pitch said he managed 
to get used to exact quarter tones, or E24, and it was not so difficult for him.

1. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-05/msg00465.html



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Werner LEMBERG]

> I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying.  [...]

OK, I misunderstood :-)


Werner

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Michael Hendry]

> On 26 May 2016, at 08:02, N. Andrew Walsh  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic, I know, but how do those gifted with perfect pitch cope with all 
> this?
> 
> Michael
> 
> You ready for some polemic?
> 
> "Perfect pitch" is a sham. It's a fraud perpetuated by people who think that 
> some of us are simply born musical geniuses, with an innate ability to sense 
> the inner nature of music directly, and from whom creative and musical 
> expressiveness naturally and effortlessly flows. I've sat in on seminars for 
> composition, ear-training, musicology, music history, you name it; if one of 
> the composers said he had perfect pitch, everybody's eyes lit up, and his 
> scores are immediately taken more seriously.
> 
> What it really means is this: you have internalized the 12-note equal 
> tempered scale -- usually through extensive piano lessons from an early age 
> -- to such a point that your auditory memory is deeply enough ingrained that 
> you can associate heard pitches with their usual note names. That's it. I've 
> also sat in on ear-training seminars where the played music was to be written 
> down transposed: the kids with perfect pitch floundered, because they 
> couldn't actually hear the intervals, and (for them) the note names were all 
> wrong. Likewise, play them examples in other tuning systems -- just 
> intonation, but also meantone, pythagorean, or similar -- and likewise, they 
> couldn't actually identify any of the notes. To them, it was all just "out of 
> tune." 
> 
> I *despise* the idea of perfect pitch, because to me it's a sort of musical 
> parlor trick that a distressingly high number of musicians have conflated 
> with some sort of in-born propensity for musical talent, and creative 
> music-making suffers greatly for it.
> 
> But my opinions on the matter are, as the kids are saying these days, "salty."
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> A

I seem to have struck an interesting chord, here!

Another phenomenon about which I have doubts involves people who claim that 
when they hear music in “sharp” keys (e.g. G, D, A, E) their experience is of 
brightness, while the flat keys make for a more sombre sound. I’ve even heard 
in a radio interview that this applies to F# and Gb (the one bright, the other 
dull).

Michael (lighting blue touch-paper and retiring to a safe distance).
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[N. Andrew Walsh]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Werner LEMBERG  wrote:

>
> > "Perfect pitch" is a sham.  [...]
>
> It seems that you don't know the facts very well.  Absolute pitch is
> *not* related to being a `better' musician.  In fact, it's not even
> related to music.  Have a look at the Wikipedia article; it gives a
> nice overview.
>

I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying. I *absolutely* do
not think having absolute pitch makes you a better musician, and I
specifically criticized those who do (in my case, the committees reviewing
composers' scores who think having absolute pitch makes them some kind of
musical savant). I specifically said that the undue attention paid to it is
detrimental to creative music-making.


>
> In general, I consider having an absolute pitch a burden.  My life
> would be *much* easier if I hadn't to do transposition all the time.
>

I said this as well: it's a direct hindrance to being able to being able to
hear musical relationships the moment the heard material deviates from what
you've been habituated with.


>
> > I've sat in on seminars for composition, ear-training, musicology,
> > music history, you name it; if one of the composers said he had
> > perfect pitch, everybody's eyes lit up, and his scores are
> > immediately taken more seriously.
>
> Pfft.  Maybe this is an US thing.  Here in Austria and Germany noone
> takes care of that.
>

I've been working and teaching at a music school in Germany for eight
years. I beg to disagree. It was usually the first question they asked in
the ear-training seminars, and the reaction I describe for composition
seminars occurred just as often. But I do agree that they take it even more
seriously in the US.


>
> > What it really means is this: you have internalized the 12-note
> > equal tempered scale -- usually through extensive piano lessons from
> > an early age -- to such a point that your auditory memory is deeply
> > enough ingrained that you can associate heard pitches with their
> > usual note names.  That's it.
>
> No, it's not.  Please look up the facts.
>

>From that wikipedia article you suggested I read:

Influence by music experience
Absolute pitch sense appears to be influenced by cultural exposure to
music, especially in the familiarization of the equal-tempered C-major
scale. Most of the absolute listeners that were tested in this respect
identified the C-major tones more reliably and, except for B, more quickly
than the five "black key" tones, which corresponds to the higher prevalence
of these tones in ordinary musical experience. One study of Dutch
non-musicians also demonstrated a bias toward using C-major tones in
ordinary speech, especially on syllables related to emphasis.

and later:

Nature vs. nurture
Absolute pitch might be achievable by any human being during a critical
period of auditory development, after which period cognitive strategies
favor global and relational processing. Proponents of the critical-period
theory agree that the presence of absolute pitch ability is dependent on
learning, but there is disagreement about whether training causes absolute
skills to occur or lack of training causes absolute perception to be
overwhelmed and obliterated by relative perception of musical intervals.

I've been working with and writing music in non-standard tunings for … 15
years. I've worked with a lot of musicians in that time, both in Germany
and in the US. I can tell you from experience, and from having talked about
it with acousticians and musical-cognition specialists (a number of them
from the Fraunhofer Institut), that I'm pretty confident that when I say
that absolute pitch is largely the result of internalizing an
equal-tempered scale (and that usually within a narrow range of the
standard concert pitch, be it 440 or 443 or whatever) learned through early
musical training, and that a lot of musicians, composers, theorists, etc.
nevertheless treat it as if it's some key to musical talent., and that this
does more harm to music-making than good, I have a reasonably solid basis
for asserting it to be the case.

Cheers,

A
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Jacques Menu Muzhic]

BTW : are there people with 415 Hz perfect pitch, and others with 442 Hz?

> Le 26 mai 2016 à 09:41, Jacques Menu Muzhic  a écrit :
> 
> I once played near a timpani guy who told me: «  I hear a G, thus you’re 
> playing an F » !
> 
> Sort of « one tone off » perfect pitch…
> 
> JM
> 
>> Le 26 mai 2016 à 09:34, Werner LEMBERG  a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>>> "Perfect pitch" is a sham.  [...]
>> 
>> It seems that you don't know the facts very well.  Absolute pitch is
>> *not* related to being a `better' musician.  In fact, it's not even
>> related to music.  Have a look at the Wikipedia article; it gives a
>> nice overview.
>> 
>> In general, I consider having an absolute pitch a burden.  My life
>> would be *much* easier if I hadn't to do transposition all the time.
>> 
>>> I've sat in on seminars for composition, ear-training, musicology,
>>> music history, you name it; if one of the composers said he had
>>> perfect pitch, everybody's eyes lit up, and his scores are
>>> immediately taken more seriously.
>> 
>> Pfft.  Maybe this is an US thing.  Here in Austria and Germany noone
>> takes care of that.
>> 
>>> What it really means is this: you have internalized the 12-note
>>> equal tempered scale -- usually through extensive piano lessons from
>>> an early age -- to such a point that your auditory memory is deeply
>>> enough ingrained that you can associate heard pitches with their
>>> usual note names.  That's it.
>> 
>> No, it's not.  Please look up the facts.
>> 
>> 
>>   Werner
>> 
>> ___
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> lilypond-user@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> 


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Jacques Menu Muzhic]

I once played near a timpani guy who told me: «  I hear a G, thus you’re 
playing an F » !

Sort of « one tone off » perfect pitch…

JM

> Le 26 mai 2016 à 09:34, Werner LEMBERG  a écrit :
> 
> 
>> "Perfect pitch" is a sham.  [...]
> 
> It seems that you don't know the facts very well.  Absolute pitch is
> *not* related to being a `better' musician.  In fact, it's not even
> related to music.  Have a look at the Wikipedia article; it gives a
> nice overview.
> 
> In general, I consider having an absolute pitch a burden.  My life
> would be *much* easier if I hadn't to do transposition all the time.
> 
>> I've sat in on seminars for composition, ear-training, musicology,
>> music history, you name it; if one of the composers said he had
>> perfect pitch, everybody's eyes lit up, and his scores are
>> immediately taken more seriously.
> 
> Pfft.  Maybe this is an US thing.  Here in Austria and Germany noone
> takes care of that.
> 
>> What it really means is this: you have internalized the 12-note
>> equal tempered scale -- usually through extensive piano lessons from
>> an early age -- to such a point that your auditory memory is deeply
>> enough ingrained that you can associate heard pitches with their
>> usual note names.  That's it.
> 
> No, it's not.  Please look up the facts.
> 
> 
>Werner
> 
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: slur corehack

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

> > I would say that, on the contrary, \tweak and \override are not
> documented.
> > At least, not well enough to be useful for use with slurs.
> >
> > In the case of slurs, searching for "lilypond slurs tweak", the
> > documentation that comes up describes how to tweak slurs relative to
> text,
> > not how to tweak the actual curves themselves.
> >
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/learning/outside_002dstaff-objects
>
> I typed that string into google and the top hit was
>
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/modifying-shapes
>
> which is the page you've quoted from in this thread.
>

Yes, and if you paid attention, or read that page carefully,
then you would see that these techniques are not presented on that page
(nor any of the other pages you cited.).

What was your point?




> > Rather, I am suggesting that the approach of changing all slurs' default
> > values should be described in addition to (and probably ahead of) the
> > approach of changing a single curve's control points.
>
> I don't understand why you'd describe how to change every foo before
> you'd described the effect of making changes to one instance.
>

The shape of curves affects the overall look of the page.  You would want
to affect them globally to achieve a "house style".

Or, simply choose a starting point that fixes most of the issues with the
curves, before proceeding to the tedious work of one-at-a-time techniques.

Plus, while you can achieve similar results using the different
techniques,these different approaches are not comparable:  one is
manipulating differences in control points from the default algorithm, the
other is affecting the values used in the underlying algorithm itself.




> And is it sensible to try to teach:
>
> (spanner-id . "")
> (springs-and-rods . ,ly:spanner::set-spacing-rods)
> (stencil . ,ly:slur::print)
> (thickness . 1.2)
> (vertical-skylines . ,(ly:make-unpure-pure-container
> ly:slur::vertical-skylines
> ly:grob::pure-simple-vertical-skylines-from-extents))
> (Y-extent . ,slur::height)
> (meta . ((class . Spanner)
>  (interfaces . (outside-staff-interface
> slur-interface))
>
> before teaching:
>
>  \shape #'(
>  (( 0 . 0) (0 . 0) (0 . 0) (0 . 1))
>  ((0.5 . 1.5) (1 . 0) (0 . 0) (0 . -1.5))
>) Slur
>
> ?
>

No one is suggesting that.

Are you trolling?




> > For now, here are some proof-of concept intermediate versions from the
> > piece that spurred me to try this approach.
>
...

> > My final version is not ideal to compare since the line breaking is
> vastly
> > different.
>


> Comparing appearances is pointless unless you either put extra \breaks
> into (1) and (2), probably easier, or manually set fewer in (3),
> probably harder. Oh, and keep the notes the same.
>

So, it seems you either have problems with reading comprehension, or
attitude.



> Cheers,
> David.
>

Seems more like a snarl, but I'll try to take you at your word.



David Elaine Alt
415 . 341 .4954   "*Confusion is
highly underrated*"
ela...@flaminghakama.com
self-immolation.info
skype: flaming_hakama
Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[Werner LEMBERG]

> "Perfect pitch" is a sham.  [...]

It seems that you don't know the facts very well.  Absolute pitch is
*not* related to being a `better' musician.  In fact, it's not even
related to music.  Have a look at the Wikipedia article; it gives a
nice overview.

In general, I consider having an absolute pitch a burden.  My life
would be *much* easier if I hadn't to do transposition all the time.

> I've sat in on seminars for composition, ear-training, musicology,
> music history, you name it; if one of the composers said he had
> perfect pitch, everybody's eyes lit up, and his scores are
> immediately taken more seriously.

Pfft.  Maybe this is an US thing.  Here in Austria and Germany noone
takes care of that.

> What it really means is this: you have internalized the 12-note
> equal tempered scale -- usually through extensive piano lessons from
> an early age -- to such a point that your auditory memory is deeply
> enough ingrained that you can associate heard pitches with their
> usual note names.  That's it.

No, it's not.  Please look up the facts.


Werner

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: footnote counter

[Mark Knoop]

At 00:35 on 26 May 2016, Jeffery Shivers wrote:
>I am trying to find the following two things regarding footnotes:
>
>1) How might I retrieve the accumulated number of footnotes either for
>an entire document/section, or at least for a single page?
>
>2) In the notation doc [
>http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation.pdf], pg. 481, the
>'mark' element describes that the count is automatically reset on each
>page that contains a footnote. Where is that function written; and how
>could it be overwritten (specifically to *not* automatically reset
>ever, or (additionally) to only reset when explicitly instructed)?

\paper {
  reset-footnotes-on-new-page = ##f
}

will do the first. I'm afraid I can't help with the other points.

-- 
Mark Knoop

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: OT: high-precision tuner app

[N. Andrew Walsh]

>
>
>
> Off topic, I know, but how do those gifted with perfect pitch cope with
> all this?
>
> Michael
>

You ready for some polemic?

"Perfect pitch" is a sham. It's a fraud perpetuated by people who think
that some of us are simply born musical geniuses, with an innate ability to
sense the inner nature of music directly, and from whom creative and
musical expressiveness naturally and effortlessly flows. I've sat in on
seminars for composition, ear-training, musicology, music history, you name
it; if one of the composers said he had perfect pitch, everybody's eyes lit
up, and his scores are immediately taken more seriously.

What it really means is this: you have internalized the 12-note equal
tempered scale -- usually through extensive piano lessons from an early age
-- to such a point that your auditory memory is deeply enough ingrained
that you can associate heard pitches with their usual note names. That's
it. I've also sat in on ear-training seminars where the played music was to
be written down transposed: the kids with perfect pitch floundered, because
they couldn't actually hear the intervals, and (for them) the note names
were all wrong. Likewise, play them examples in other tuning systems --
just intonation, but also meantone, pythagorean, or similar -- and
likewise, they couldn't actually identify any of the notes. To them, it was
all just "out of tune."

I *despise* the idea of perfect pitch, because to me it's a sort of musical
parlor trick that a distressingly high number of musicians have conflated
with some sort of in-born propensity for musical talent, and creative
music-making suffers greatly for it.

But my opinions on the matter are, as the kids are saying these days,
"salty."

Cheers,

A
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user