Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
these programs operate as you describe Okay, then they *do* use (essentially) the same method as Lilypond, not some visually-oriented method which follows the key signature... Not so. In Sibelius, you put the key signature, e.g. F sharp major, then type the plain letter names, e.g. f g a b c d e f which plays back as the scale I was talking about MIDI keyboard entry. of F sharp major. The Lilypond method seems a bit odd to start with, but es and is are easily typed. What's the point of quibbling over it. As Graham says, the coders got there first. So is there *any* example of an application which tries to follow the key signature for someone? Yes - Sibelius. ABC too. And I never liked it. Kees ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi David R, AFAIK, all of the graphical-interface music scoring programs use the visually-oriented logic. The last time I used Finale — which, thankfully, was a very long time ago! ;) — there were only two ways of entering notes: 1. From a MIDI keyboard: Clearly, you can't follow the key signature with this method, since pressing a (MIDI) g-sharp gives a g-sharp, regardless of the key signature. 2. Mouse/QWERTY keyboard (Speedy?) entry: When you clicked on (e.g.) the g-line of the treble clef, a g-NATURAL appeared, regardless of the key signature, and you had to scroll up or down (or click-add an accidental) to change the pitch/alteration. Is that not still true? Are there any Finale or Sibelius users out there who can confirm what model these prorgrams use? The discussion is heading in some unfortunate directions because of a confusion between data entry -- which is a matter of the user interface -- and the underlying data _structures_, which are something else. In the current version of Finale, and all that I can remember, note entry does indeed 'follow the key signature': if I use the so-called 'speedy entry' mode in a score with a key signature of Bb major and place a note on the middle line of a staff with treble clef, Finale will interpret the entered note as being a Bb. Now, if I try to change the key signature, Finale presents me with multiple options: transpose the notes to the new key; preserve the notes enharmonically; preserve the notes chromatically; or preserve the notes _modally_ -- that is, maintain the staff positions but interpret the notes in the light of the new key signature. (So, if I changed the key from Bb major to C major with this last option, all the Bb's and Eb's would change to B- and E-naturals.) Essentially, I'm being asked if I want to preserve the underlying data or to rewrite it according to one of various different rules. What's implicit in this is that Finale's data structures, like Lilypond's, store the exact notes -- but Finale's _user interface_ permits a data entry method that simplifies the process of entering tonal music, along with a number of macros to rewrite the underlying data in different ways when key signatures are changed. On the other hand if you're writing Lilypond code using a text editor, you're writing straight to the underlying data structures used to generate the score -- and it would be insane to distort this with 'follow the key signature' rules, because it introduces all sorts of recursive dependencies and potential sources of error. Features like Finale's can easily be developed for GUI front-ends like Denemo and even potentially as macros for a Lilypond editing suite like Frescobaldi, but to introduce them _at the data structure level_ would be a very big mistake. -- Joe ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi Joseph, The discussion is heading in some unfortunate directions because of a confusion between data entry -- which is a matter of the user interface -- and the underlying data _structures_, which are something else. [...] What's implicit in this is that Finale's data structures, like Lilypond's, store the exact notes -- but Finale's _user interface_ permits a data entry method that simplifies the process of entering tonal music, along with a number of macros to rewrite the underlying data in different ways when key signatures are changed. On the other hand if you're writing Lilypond code using a text editor, you're writing straight to the underlying data structures used to generate the score -- and it would be insane to distort this with 'follow the key signature' rules, because it introduces all sorts of recursive dependencies and potential sources of error. Excellent observation/analysis — thanks! Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Frederick Dennis wrote: In Sibelius, you put the key signature, e.g. F sharp major, then type the plain letter names, e.g. f g a b c d e f which plays back as the scale of F sharp major. I knew there was a reason why I didn't like Sibelius ... 'simple' ways of working that wind up generating mental pain when you start doing anything the slightest bit complicated. The Lilypond method seems a bit odd to start with, but es and is are easily typed. What's the point of quibbling over it. As Graham says, the coders got there first. The coders got it _right_. This is another instance of confusion between data entry and data storage -- see my post elsewhere in this thread: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Accidentals%3A-Unwanted-naturals-p25240064.html If you looked in Sibelius' underlying data structures, I doubt you'd see any 'following the key signature'. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes:
That being said, nobody's stopping anyone who wants to write a Scheme
function that would support such a beast: that's the beauty of open
source software! ;)
As an experiment, and not because I think it is a good idea, I toyed
with something to make this happen, sort of. Unfortunately, it does not
work. Anyone have any ideas why?
\include english.ly
#(define (create-modified-pitches base spec)
Return a new set of pitch names based on BASE and modified by SPEC.
SPEC is a list of (NEW-NAME . OLD-NAME) pairs.
(define (update-pitches base new spec)
(if (null? spec)
new
(let ((new-name (caar spec))
(old-name (cdar spec)))
(update-pitches base
(assq-set! new new-name (assq-ref base old-name))
(cdr spec)
(update-pitches base (copy-tree base) spec))
bflatmajorPitches = #(create-modified-pitches pitchnamesEnglish
'((b . bf) (bn . b) (e . ef) (en . e)))
#(ly:parser-set-note-names parser bflatmajorPitches)
{ \key bf \major c' d' e' f' g' a' b' c' d' en' f' g' a' bn' }
--
Michael Welsh Duggan
(m...@md5i.com)
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Am Montag, 31. August 2009 06:14:21 schrieb David Raleigh Arnold: On Saturday 29 August 2009, Kieren MacMillan wrote: David, The key signature is and has been for many centuries an integral part of the notation. Yes... and now you're suggesting we make it *not* integral — your argument holds no merit. No. I'm stating outright that you make the key signature musically irrrelevant now, because changing the key signature has no effect on the pitch of the notes. No, it's not making it irrelevant. But you are right, the key signature has no effect on the pitch with absolute note neames, because in lilypond you need to give the absolute pitch (i.e. the note name). Per definition a pitch is a pitch, and the key signature does not change the pitch, it only changes how a pitch is displayed (i.e. the key signature is a shortcut that avoids writing lots of accidentals) and it describes the basic harmony that lies behind the notes. Your argument makes sense if you think in relative solmisation (as developed byCurwen and Kodaly, see e.g. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonic_sol-fa ), where the note names don't specify absolute pitches like c,d,e,f,g,a,b,c, but relative pitches within the key signatures. E.g. a do in tonic solmisation always describes the tonic of the key, re always the note above, etc. Their meaning changes with the key signature, of course. This seems to be quite popular in the States, while over here in Europe, practically everyone uses and thinks in absolute pitch names. (There is also absolute solmisation, where a do is always the absolute pitch c, so that is basically just absolute pitch names named do, re, mi, etc.) However, the absolute pitch names a, b, etc. are really absolute pitch names and their meaning should never, ever depend on the key signature. Just ask anyone music teacher of any level you know... What you are asking for, is basically an implementation of tonic solmisation in lilypond, where you want to misuse absolute pitch names. However, beware that tonic solmisation is not a general solution. It works for tonal pieces, but modern pieces often don't have an underlying tonality, so there is no key signature to which the names can be proportional. Try to be more rational, please. Try to be less insulting, please. And please try to accept that there are other people, who have far better musical education than you have. There are lots of people involved in lilypond who really know what they are doing... Cheers, Reinhold -- -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
2009/8/31 Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com: However, the absolute pitch names a, b, etc. are really absolute pitch names and their meaning should never, ever depend on the key signature. Just ask anyone music teacher of any level you know... I think it does worth mentioning the Spanish tradition of not solmisating the exact pitches but the noteheads alone, so to speak. So we sing the Beethoven's fifth as sol sol sol m (with the actual sound being g8 g g ees2\fermata), which is confusing, of course, but it is a deeply rooted tradition. This makes also far easier and faster to solmisate pieces in D flat major, for example. I reckon this kind of solmisation is pretty useless and ambiguous. As for the allegedly easier input of notes in lilypond if you'd enter noteheads only the visual way, ignoring the key signature, I must say that beginners complain strongly when they have to enter heavyly altered music, of course, but then I gently suggest the 'transposing' and the 'actual meaning' arguments and they get disarmed immediately. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi David R, AFAIK, all of the graphical-interface music scoring programs use the visually-oriented logic. The last time I used Finale — which, thankfully, was a very long time ago! ;) — there were only two ways of entering notes: 1. From a MIDI keyboard: Clearly, you can't follow the key signature with this method, since pressing a (MIDI) g-sharp gives a g-sharp, regardless of the key signature. 2. Mouse/QWERTY keyboard (Speedy?) entry: When you clicked on (e.g.) the g-line of the treble clef, a g-NATURAL appeared, regardless of the key signature, and you had to scroll up or down (or click-add an accidental) to change the pitch/alteration. Is that not still true? Are there any Finale or Sibelius users out there who can confirm what model these prorgrams use? Thanks, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
From: Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: Hi David R, AFAIK, all of the graphical-interface music scoring programs use the visually-oriented logic. The last time I used Finale — which, thankfully, was a very long time ago! ;) — there were only two ways of entering notes: 1. From a MIDI keyboard: Clearly, you can't follow the key signature with this method, since pressing a (MIDI) g-sharp gives a g-sharp, regardless of the key signature. 2. Mouse/QWERTY keyboard (Speedy?) entry: When you clicked on (e.g.) the g-line of the treble clef, a g-NATURAL appeared, regardless of the key signature, and you had to scroll up or down (or click-add an accidental) to change the pitch/alteration. Is that not still true? Are there any Finale or Sibelius users out there who can confirm what model these prorgrams use? Of course these programs operate as you describe. If you edit a piece in G major and enter the notes through a MIDI keyboard you have to play E F# G, not E F G, and I can't imagine an other way. Well I can, but it is like playing a piano with a key setting so that when you hit the F, an F# sounds if you set the G-major mode. Kees (An ex Finale user who'll never go back) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi Kees, these programs operate as you describe Okay, then they *do* use (essentially) the same method as Lilypond, not some visually-oriented method which follows the key signature... So is there *any* example of an application which tries to follow the key signature for someone? Not only do I know of no such program, I can't even imagine how it could be done (technically). Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
2009/8/31 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: Hi Kees, these programs operate as you describe Okay, then they *do* use (essentially) the same method as Lilypond, not some visually-oriented method which follows the key signature... So is there *any* example of an application which tries to follow the key signature for someone? Not only do I know of no such program, I can't even imagine how it could be done (technically). Well, I think technically it's easy, just draw the little balls. You'll have a drawing program that knows little about music. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi Francisco, Well, I think technically it's easy, just draw the little balls. You'll have a drawing program that knows little about music. Of course, you're right... I was foolishly assuming this would be a music engraving program that knew something about music. ;) Thanks, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 08:32, Kieren MacMillankieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote: Hi Kees, these programs operate as you describe Okay, then they *do* use (essentially) the same method as Lilypond, not some visually-oriented method which follows the key signature... So is there *any* example of an application which tries to follow the key signature for someone? Not only do I know of no such program, I can't even imagine how it could be done (technically). It has been SO long since I tried Sibelius (and that just for a short time) that I honestly forgot how it worked. Example of an application (Mac OS X only) that does follow the key signature on mouse-click input: NoteAbility http://debussy.music.ubc.ca/NoteAbility/ It was the last graphically oriented app I used, and so I guess had modified my own memory concerning the big guns Finale and Sibelius. David R ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Using the QWERTY way (QWERTZ in German layout keyboard) does indeed work the visual way in programs like MuseScore, and Sibelius 5. Depending on the key signature, for example a keyboard stroke d gives either des d or dis. regards Arne Peters, Berlin (reading the whole slightly baffled and amused ...) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Accidentals%3A-Unwanted-naturals-tp25121407p25227539.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Friday 28 August 2009, David Rogers wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:58, Kieren
MacMillankieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote:
Hi David (et al),
Just to be absolutely clear, the fallacy in your argument lies in
the
following statement:
It's necessary to consider the sound of the music,
*and not the conventional rules of printed scores*
when doing Lilypond pitch input.
Quite the contrary, the conventional rules of printed scores DO
consider
(incorporate) the sound of the music — that's why the Western
notation
system works as well as it does (despite some flaws/shortcomings,
and
countless attempts to replace it with a superior alternative).
Let's start by considering the CRoPS with respect to a simple
notation
example. If the key signature is D major (i.e., two sharps), and the
pitch
class [!!] being displayed is the top line of the treble clef (i.e.,
F),
then the CRoPS tells us that the actual pitch that should be
performed is an
F-sharp (i.e., fis'').
Now, let's do Lilypond pitch input for this same example. You want
Lilypond to output an F-sharp at the top of the treble clef, and
display the
result in D major (i.e., with a D major key signature).
Step 1 is to define/list the pitch(es) you want engraved:
theMusic = { fis'' }
Step 2 is to build the score, with clef and key signature:
\score { \new Staff \key d \major \clef treble \theMusic }
Doing the same thing *without* the pitch alteration (sharp) in
theMusic
definition exposes the fundamental problem with
a follow-the-key-signature
approach.
I know that. I think Lilypond is operating correctly here, that this
part of the code should be kept as is with nothing added, and that
those users who wish it operated differently are making a mistake, for
exactly the reasons you've just pointed out.
HOWEVER, I think it's necessary to explain this issue *in their terms*
in the documentation, so that they can stop being confused by a
perfectly good (but logically backwards *to them*) implementation,
letting them get on with their work.
Thank you for trying to be more evenhanded.
How is insisting on one mode of pitch entry any different from
insisting on every note having its duration number? Or insisting on
specifying an octave with each note, ruling out relative pitch? How is
\followKeySignature any different in philosophy or specificity or
la-la-la from \relative pitch? The difference is that
\followKeySignature would *seem* to be more difficult to implement,
when, provided that the key signature to be followed is specified
independently, it would be very simple. The initial impulse for the
negative attitude, which has prevented any thought of how the thing
could and should be done, is simple laziness.
I have an editing tool that works, and I can continue to use it and
make it available to any who are interested. I just get tired
of reading the nonsense and insults whenever anyone questions this
irrational decision not to make following the key signature an option
in lilypond. The decision does the coders no credit. Regards, daveA
--
For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early
intermediate guitar solos. One best scale set for all guitarists.
http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html ::: plus new and
better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi David, The initial impulse for the negative attitude, which has prevented any thought of how the thing could and should be done, is simple laziness. I can't speak for anyone else, but I *have* put thought into how this could be done in Lilypond, and ultimately decided not that it CAN'T be done (since, as you say, it would be relatively easy to implement), but only that it SHOULDN'T (as seconded by Graham and essentially everyone else involved in this thread). This is clearly where you seem to not understand the situation, and, by extension, the way that open-source communities work. For the second (or maybe third?) time, I recommend that if you feel \followKeySignature is a worthwhile thing to have in Lilypond, instead of smugly tossing insults around — which seems to be your modus operandi — submit a *Lilypond* (i.e., C++ or Scheme) patch to implement it. Barring that, accept that you are the main obstacle to its implementation, and stop bothering us with the idea. I just get tired of reading the nonsense and insults Now there, we agree 100%... and my simple laziness (as you so insultingly put it) won't get in the way of me moving on: I'm done even bothering to think about this issue. Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi David, Example of an application (Mac OS X only) that does follow the key signature on mouse-click input: NoteAbility http://debussy.music.ubc.ca/NoteAbility/ Interesting... Keith Hamel was a teacher of mine at UBC, and so I used NoteWriter back in the late 80s and early 90s. The last time I tried a demo of NoteAbility (about four or five years ago), I found the flexibility to be superior — at least to Finale, Sibelius, and Igor Engraver, which were the three big guns at the time — but the GUI to be incomprehensibly and needlessly complex. Perhaps I'll give it another look, just for old time's sake. Thanks, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
At 13:39 on 31 Aug 2009, David Raleigh Arnold wrote: How is insisting on one mode of pitch entry any different from insisting on every note having its duration number? Or insisting on specifying an octave with each note, ruling out relative pitch? How is \followKeySignature any different in philosophy or specificity or la-la-la from \relative pitch? The difference is that \followKeySignature would *seem* to be more difficult to implement, when, provided that the key signature to be followed is specified independently, it would be very simple. The initial impulse for the negative attitude, which has prevented any thought of how the thing could and should be done, is simple laziness. You seem to misunderstand how open source software development works. It is not laziness for someone to not spend time on a feature that they have no need for. I have an editing tool that works, and I can continue to use it and make it available to any who are interested. Please post this magic script so we can see how your solution is implemented. I just get tired of reading the nonsense and insults whenever anyone questions this irrational decision not to make following the key signature an option in lilypond. The decision does the coders no credit. Regards, daveA I have just read through most of this thread again, and the only insults I find come from you. -- Mark Knoop ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On 31 Aug 2009, at 19:50, Arne Peters wrote: Using the QWERTY way (QWERTZ in German layout keyboard) does indeed work the visual way in programs like MuseScore, and Sibelius 5. Depending on the key signature, for example a keyboard stroke d gives either des d or dis. There is the following layout for diatonic (extended meantone) system, which is what the Western musical notation system describes: A# B# Cx Dx Ex A B C# D# E# Fx Gx Ax Bx Bb C D E F# G# A# B# Cb Db Eb F G A B C'# D'# Dbb Ebb Fb Gb Ab Bb C' D' E' Transposition is by translation in this diagram. So the same scale, interval or chord (disregarding inversions) will have the same pattern but translated. Different scale degrees are on different / diagonals. I have used it for playing music in Scala and Chuck in various tunings, like Pythagorean and quarter-comma meantone (which sets the major second to the interval ratio 5/4). It works just fine. It might be good for note input, as it does not impose E12 enharmonic equivalence. But it may not be a LilyPond proper question - one needs an editor or key-map that can generate note names in LilyPond code. Hans ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:21:34 -0700 From: Kees van den Doel kvand...@shaw.ca Subject: Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals To: lilypond-user@gnu.org Message-ID: cd15c2846d16b.4a9b7...@shaw.ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: Hi David R, AFAIK, all of the graphical-interface music scoring programs use the visually-oriented logic. The last time I used Finale — which, thankfully, was a very long time ago! ;) — there were only two ways of entering notes: 1. From a MIDI keyboard: Clearly, you can't follow the key signature with this method, since pressing a (MIDI) g-sharp gives a g-sharp, regardless of the key signature. 2. Mouse/QWERTY keyboard (Speedy?) entry: When you clicked on (e.g.) the g-line of the treble clef, a g-NATURAL appeared, regardless of the key signature, and you had to scroll up or down (or click-add an accidental) to change the pitch/alteration. Is that not still true? Are there any Finale or Sibelius users out there who can confirm what model these prorgrams use? Of course these programs operate as you describe. If you edit a piece in G major and enter the notes through a MIDI keyboard you have to play E F# G, not E F G, and I can't imagine an other way. Well I can, but it is like playing a piano with a key setting so that when you hit the F, an F# sounds if you set the G-major mode. Kees (An ex Finale user who'll never go back) In Finale, both Speedy Entry and Simple Entry add notes to the staff without putting any accidentals in front of the note. If you're in c-major and you enter a note on the middle line of the treble clef, it's a b-natural. If you're in f-major, it's entered as a b-flat. Handling these types of graphical entry in the same way as Lilypond would be peculiar, because in Finale the process is a kind of computer-assisted hand engraving where you put the mouse pointer on the staff and click to let the program etch the note for you. If you were to hand engrave a piece in f-major and you wanted a b-flat, you would just etch the note-head on the middle line, so that's the metaphor for GUI entry. In Lilypond that would be analogous to a system to specify which line, space, or ledger line on the staff you want the notehead to be drawn on. It is not, however, analogous to using the character f to specify an f-sharp in the key of d-major; from the user's point of view, Finale remains agnostic on what to call the note that's being entered. If there were a speech-recognition plugin in Finale that would draw an f-sharp when f was spoken, I'm sure a lot of theory teachers would be up in arms. -Jonathan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
these programs operate as you describe Okay, then they *do* use (essentially) the same method as Lilypond, not some visually-oriented method which follows the key signature... Not so. In Sibelius, you put the key signature, e.g. F sharp major, then type the plain letter names, e.g. f g a b c d e f which plays back as the scale of F sharp major. The Lilypond method seems a bit odd to start with, but es and is are easily typed. What's the point of quibbling over it. As Graham says, the coders got there first. So is there *any* example of an application which tries to follow the key signature for someone? Yes - Sibelius. Not only do I know of no such program, I can't even imagine how it could be done (technically). ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 04:13:56PM -0400, David Raleigh Arnold wrote: But in this instance, the majority of coders line up in opposition. You have shouted down the users, but convinced none. Why? Because you are wrong. We don't care. We don't have to. We're the telephone company. Cheers, - Graham if you don't recognize it, look it up. It's funny! Percival ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Graham Percival wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 04:13:56PM -0400, David Raleigh Arnold wrote: But in this instance, the majority of coders line up in opposition. You have shouted down the users, but convinced none. Why? Because you are wrong. We don't care. We don't have to. We're the telephone company. Cheers, - Graham if you don't recognize it, look it up. It's funny! Percival I've seen this discussion come up before. The coders are not wrong (and no, I'm not a coder). This is the way LilyPond works. LilyPond is designed to take the musical content and render it according to established engraving practice. Musical content includes pitches. If you enter a 'b' in the key of b-flat LilyPond will produce a 'b' as LilyPond has no way of knowing what pitch you actually want. That's the pitch you entered. Likewise if you use TeX, or a high-dollar word processor, and you type there the program isn't going to know if you should have typed their or they're. It will print it very nicely on the page for you but that's all. YOU supply the information. The program provides the printed output. It is the user's job to know what information to supply. This includes the actual pitch names. You can either choose to learn that rule or you can write an extension to make LilyPond do it another way. I rather suspect that the cerebral overhead required for the latter is rather higher than simply remembering that you must enter complete information for all pitches. -David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi David, Likewise if you use TeX, or a high-dollar word processor, and you type there the program isn't going to know if you should have typed their or they're. Perfect analogy! I was looking for one, but couldn't come up with it — kudos! Regards, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Sunday 30 August 2009, David Bobroff wrote: Graham Percival wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 04:13:56PM -0400, David Raleigh Arnold wrote: But in this instance, the majority of coders line up in opposition. You have shouted down the users, but convinced none. Why? Because you are wrong. We don't care. We don't have to. We're the telephone company. Cheers, - Graham if you don't recognize it, look it up. It's funny! Percival I've seen this discussion come up before. The coders are not wrong (and no, I'm not a coder). This is the way LilyPond works. LilyPond is designed to take the musical content and render it according to established engraving practice. Musical content includes pitches. If you enter a 'b' in the key of b-flat LilyPond will produce a 'b' as LilyPond has no way of knowing what pitch you actually want. That's the pitch you entered. Likewise if you use TeX, or a high-dollar word processor, and you type there the program isn't going to know if you should have typed their or they're. It will print it very nicely on the page for you but that's all. YOU supply the information. The program provides the printed output. It is the user's job to know what information to supply. This includes the actual pitch names. You can either choose to learn that rule or you can write an extension to make LilyPond do it another way. I rather suspect that the cerebral overhead required for the latter is rather higher than simply remembering that you must enter complete information for all pitches. A sed script to do it was almost trivial, even for me. Regards, daveA -- For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early intermediate guitar solos. One best scale set for all guitarists. http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html ::: plus new and better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
You can either choose to learn that rule or you can write an extension to make LilyPond do it another way. A sed script to do it was almost trivial, even for me. So then why not (re)write it in Scheme and contribute the function/ tip to the Lilypond community, so that others could benefit (since you claim they would)? Writing a trivial sed script for something so apparently useful, and then keeping it to yourself, is not particularly helpful or generous. Regards, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Saturday 29 August 2009, Kieren MacMillan wrote: David, The key signature is and has been for many centuries an integral part of the notation. Yes... and now you're suggesting we make it *not* integral — your argument holds no merit. No. I'm stating outright that you make the key signature musically irrrelevant now, because changing the key signature has no effect on the pitch of the notes. Your argument refutes your own case. Try to be more rational, please. Regards, daveA -- For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early intermediate guitar solos. One best scale set for all guitarists. http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html ::: plus new and better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 21:14, David Raleigh Arnoldd...@openguitar.com wrote: On Saturday 29 August 2009, Kieren MacMillan wrote: David, The key signature is and has been for many centuries an integral part of the notation. Yes... and now you're suggesting we make it *not* integral — your argument holds no merit. No. I'm stating outright that you make the key signature musically irrrelevant now, because changing the key signature has no effect on the pitch of the notes. Your argument refutes your own case. Try to be more rational, please. Regards, daveA He is being perfectly rational. So are you. You're both right, in musical terms; you're just coming at the problem from different points of view - one is (essentially) visually-oriented, the other sound-oriented. Obviously, music scoring involves both, which is why you're both right. Lilypond, however, is clearly set up from only one of those points of view, namely the sound-oriented one. It doesn't really matter; things had to be set up some way, one way got chosen, and that's pretty much it. Trying to change it now would be an uphill battle, to put it mildly. David, your logic makes perfect sense. But the way Lilypond is set up, ALSO makes perfect sense. You'll get more music done if you just learn to live with it, or use a different piece of software altogether. Just the gymnastics that would be involved in trying to get the modified scores to transpose would be bad enough - and I'm sure that's just the most obvious problem. AFAIK, all of the graphical-interface music scoring programs use the visually-oriented logic. I think it makes sense that Lilypond, as a text-interface scoring program, might be expected to rely on sound-oriented logic, since its graphical facilities are, umm, skimpy. :-) Hope that made sense. The Other David (with a blue helmet on, not shooting much...) :-) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote: From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca Subject: Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals To: Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 7:10 AM On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:01:05PM -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: If the above seems confusing, consider this: if you were playing a piano, which key would you hit? If you would press a black key, then you must add -is or -es to the note name! The hint at the end about black keys doesn't work for b- and e-sharp, nor c- and f-flat, nor double-sharps and flats. Yes, but most novices with no knowledge of lilypond or music theory won't be writing in 5 sharps or flats, double-sharps or flats, or b/c e/f sharp/flats. These accidentals are common. B-sharp crops up in jazz tunes, even in c major, as a lower chromatic neighbor to c-sharp in a little tinkling over an A7 chord. If it's repeated within a measure, you don't have to know any music theory at all to realize that b-sharp to c-sharp is a lot easier to read than alternating natural- and sharp-signs in front of what looks like a stationary note. Using the black key/white key dichotomy makes other sharps/flats seem more exotic than they are, which leads to poor notation when unnecessarily avoiding them. What about something like this: If the above seems confusing, imagine someone asks you for the first four notes of Beethoven's fifth. If you say, g, g, g, e-flat, you are correct. However, if you say g, g, g, e, you are wrong and will be corrected by any theory teacher within a fifty-foot radius as follows: That's an e-flat, not an e. Have a look at the key signature. Unlike the theory teacher above, Lilypond doesn't know the answers ahead of time and assumes you know what you're doing. The way you say note-names out loud at sounding pitch corresponds directly to the way you enter pitches into a Lilypond score. That means no matter what key signature you put in front of it, Beethoven's fifth always starts with g g g ees when input into a Lilypond score. Too verbose. It also relies on knowledge of Beethoven's fifth [symphony]. Do people in China know classical Western music that well? What about a banjo players who's only done fiddle tunes? It's true that the piano example won't be understood by somebody who's never seen a piano before, but at a certain point there's nothing we can do other than pointing people at a music theory website or whatever. Yes, I agree with the points you make. I would just add that there is a big discrepancy between GUI notation programs and Lilypond regarding this issue. In a GUI program if you're in d-major and you enter a note on the top line of the treble clef, it's an f-sharp by default. But after re-reading the LM I think it's pretty clear on these issues, so that someone making the switch need only read and reflect. -Jonathan Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:40:41PM -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: Yes, but most novices with no knowledge of lilypond or music theory won't be writing in 5 sharps or flats, double-sharps or flats, or b/c e/f sharp/flats. These accidentals are common. B-sharp crops up in jazz tunes, even in c major, as a lower chromatic neighbor to c-sharp in a little tinkling over an A7 chord. If it's repeated within a measure, you don't have to know any music theory at all to realize that b-sharp to c-sharp is a lot easier to read than alternating natural- and sharp-signs in front of what looks like a stationary note. Using the black key/white key dichotomy makes other sharps/flats seem more exotic than they are, which leads to poor notation when unnecessarily avoiding them. Actually, I thought that black keys would seem less exotic. I mean, even non-musicians can see that there's difference between white notes and black notes, but fundamentally they're all notes. -snip- Yes, I agree with the points you make. I'm fine with changing the piano example, as long as the replacement is almost as short and clear. I think that the slight blurring of accidentals and black notes is an allowable falsehood, but if anybody can find a more accurate analogy, without making it much longer, great! But after re-reading the LM I think it's pretty clear on these issues, so that someone making the switch need only read and reflect. Sadly, that's the hardest thing to get people to do. :( The best answer I've come up with is make the docs as short and clear as possible, so that people can immediately see how it affects them, without them getting discouraged by the length. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Friday 28 August 2009, Kieren MacMillan wrote: David, It is also perfectly reasonable for a person who has been writing music for decades for it to make no sense. Why? Because it makes no sense, and never did. ? Why not a \followKeySignature command? ?? I can't remember who in this thread first suggested that when you play an instrument you follow the key signature, but Nonsense. Lilyond is supposed to be a /notation/ program. The key signature is and has been for many centuries an integral part of the notation. If you follow your own logic you would have to conclude that key signatures ought not to be used at all. But your argument is merely casuistry anyway. Regards, daveA -- For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early intermediate guitar solos. One best scale set for all guitarists. http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html ::: plus new and better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Friday 28 August 2009, David Rogers wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:58, Kieren
MacMillankieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote:
Hi David (et al),
Just to be absolutely clear, the fallacy in your argument lies in
the
following statement:
It's necessary to consider the sound of the music,
*and not the conventional rules of printed scores*
when doing Lilypond pitch input.
Quite the contrary, the conventional rules of printed scores DO
consider
(incorporate) the sound of the music — that's why the Western
notation
system works as well as it does (despite some flaws/shortcomings,
and
countless attempts to replace it with a superior alternative).
Let's start by considering the CRoPS with respect to a simple
notation
example. If the key signature is D major (i.e., two sharps), and the
pitch
class [!!] being displayed is the top line of the treble clef (i.e.,
F),
then the CRoPS tells us that the actual pitch that should be
performed is an
F-sharp (i.e., fis'').
Now, let's do Lilypond pitch input for this same example. You want
Lilypond to output an F-sharp at the top of the treble clef, and
display the
result in D major (i.e., with a D major key signature).
Step 1 is to define/list the pitch(es) you want engraved:
theMusic = { fis'' }
Step 2 is to build the score, with clef and key signature:
\score { \new Staff \key d \major \clef treble \theMusic }
Doing the same thing *without* the pitch alteration (sharp) in
theMusic
definition exposes the fundamental problem with
a follow-the-key-signature
approach.
I know that. I think Lilypond is operating correctly here, that this
part of the code should be kept as is with nothing added, and that
those users who wish it operated differently are making a mistake, for
exactly the reasons you've just pointed out.
HOWEVER, I think it's necessary to explain this issue *in their terms*
in the documentation, so that they can stop being confused by a
perfectly good (but logically backwards *to them*) implementation,
letting them get on with their work.
I wrote a sed script that does the job some time ago. To implement
\followKeySignature would be much easier than the opponents imagine.
I do not find it confusing to any degree, and it saves typing, and
it makes sense to me because it makes the input more similar
to the notation. Most would agree on the desirability of that,
or does anyone think that it would be good to get rid of barchecks?
But in this instance, the majority of coders line up in opposition.
You have shouted down the users, but convinced none. Why? Because
you are wrong. Regards, daveA
--
For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early
intermediate guitar solos. One best scale set for all guitarists.
http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html ::: plus new and
better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Samstag, 29. August 2009 21:55:26 schrieb David Raleigh Arnold: On Friday 28 August 2009, Kieren MacMillan wrote: I can't remember who in this thread first suggested that when you play an instrument you follow the key signature, but Nonsense. Lilyond is supposed to be a /notation/ program. Yes, lilypond is about notation, but notation has very different aspects. In Lilypond you enter the music and lilypond will do the layout - that's the basic principle. If you want to enter things exactly as they should be printed, that's the opposite side of the scale. Then you are probably better off using an aplication like SCORE. Cheers, Reinhold - -- - -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKmZDSTqjEwhXvPN0RAhvTAJ9XvDFEd5dMorJxTOm212eTROcfxQCdG6AX TyKnC4WfYowhsjns305tV8Y= =q/Fr -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On 2009-08-29, David Raleigh Arnold wrote: I know that. I think Lilypond is operating correctly here, that this part of the code should be kept as is with nothing added, and that those users who wish it operated differently are making a mistake, for exactly the reasons you've just pointed out. HOWEVER, I think it's necessary to explain this issue *in their terms* in the documentation, so that they can stop being confused by a perfectly good (but logically backwards *to them*) implementation, letting them get on with their work. I wrote a sed script that does the job some time ago. To implement \followKeySignature would be much easier than the opponents imagine. I do not find it confusing to any degree, and it saves typing, and it makes sense to me because it makes the input more similar to the notation. Most would agree on the desirability of that, or does anyone think that it would be good to get rid of barchecks? But in this instance, the majority of coders line up in opposition. You have shouted down the users, but convinced none. Why? Because you are wrong. Regards, daveA I don't think \followKeySignature would be very useful. What if you took away the key signature? Then you would be left with the wrong pitches in your LilyPond code. IMO, key signatures are merely a convenience that (sometimes) make music notation easier to read. If the key is D major, and I want an F-sharp, I would type `fis' because that *is* the correct note. I'm not thinking about the key signature. Typing `f' in order to follow the key signature creates conflict in my mind: `f' is always an F-natural, and nothing else. -Patrick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
David, The key signature is and has been for many centuries an integral part of the notation. Yes... and now you're suggesting we make it *not* integral — your argument holds no merit. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
David, You have shouted down the users, but convinced none. Why? Because you are wrong. Oh, now I remember you... I think every thread you've ever been involved in ends in some snobby, irritating comment like that! =) Thanks for the flashback, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Tuesday 25 August 2009, James E. Bailey wrote: It is actually perfectly reasonable for a person completely new to notating music for this to not make sense. It is also perfectly reasonable for a person who has been writing music for decades for it to make no sense. Why? Because it makes no sense, and never did. Why not a \followKeySignature command? It would require an n in addition to the other four chromatic sign designations, and that's it. It would save typing, and it would make the notes blocks easier to read, for /musicians/ that is. Regards, daveA -- For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early intermediate guitar solos. One best scale set for all guitarists. http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html ::: plus new and better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:33 PM, David Raleigh Arnoldd...@openguitar.com wrote: It is also perfectly reasonable for a person who has been writing music for decades for it to make no sense. Why? Because it makes no sense, and never did. Why not a \followKeySignature command? It would require an n in addition to the other four chromatic sign designations, and that's it. It would save typing, and it would make the notes blocks easier to read, for /musicians/ that is. I do have to disagree here... First of all, let me tell you that I am terrible at reading sheet music (I do know how to read notes, but just barely, and am unable to play a tune on the piano in any acceptable speed). When I see a black dot in the middle of a staaf, and it's a G cleff, I tend to play a 'b' note, even if the music is in F (and consequenly has one flat). If I were to read a note block 'by eye', and would see a key signature in F (major), and see a 'b' note, that's what I would play on the piano, and never a b-flat. I think that Lilypond's method of inputting the notes that _are to be played on the instrument_ (disregarding transposed instruments for now...) is the way to go. It's confused me at first, but if ou would'nt do that, it would be almost impossible to transpose a melody to another key and/or instrument. It would also royally screw things up if you'd first type the notes and later add another key signature. If you do that _now_, the music becomes unreadable because of the extra flats, naturals and sharps. In _your_ case, the music would come out sounding differently if you change the key signature. Not a good plan... Christ van Willegen -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
David, It is also perfectly reasonable for a person who has been writing music for decades for it to make no sense. Why? Because it makes no sense, and never did. ? Why not a \followKeySignature command? ?? I can't remember who in this thread first suggested that when you play an instrument you follow the key signature, but this notion is silly — and ultimately harmful (to music education). When you play a piano, if you want to hear a d flat, you play a d flat — you don't play a d and let the piano change the pitch for you according to the key signature. This is true of every instrument, with the only exceptions being technologically-altered performances (e.g., pressing the transpose button on a keyboard, or scordatura on a string instrument). The state of music education in the world — and especially North America — is already dire enough; let's not accelerate the slide by dumbing down notation entry under some misplaced desire to make computer engraving easier. It would save typing Yes... that's what we, as musicians, should be worried about... =\ it would make the notes blocks easier to read, for /musicians/ that is. I could not disagree with you more. Regards, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 08:03, Kieren MacMillankieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote: I can't remember who in this thread first suggested that when you play an instrument you follow the key signature, but this notion is silly — and ultimately harmful (to music education). That would be me. When you play a piano, if you want to hear a d flat, you play a d flat — you don't play a d and let the piano change the pitch for you according to the key signature. This is true of every instrument, with the only exceptions being technologically-altered performances (e.g., pressing the transpose button on a keyboard, or scordatura on a string instrument). This is a complete misunderstanding of what I intended, and after a little reflection I think I know why: It's necessary to consider the sound of the music, *and not the conventional rules of printed scores*, when doing Lilypond pitch input. Seen from a certain very reasonable point of view, this is illogical behaviour from Lilypond. I believe Lilypond's behaviour is correct and should not be changed, but said behaviour is *not* self-evident, as you seem to think. Whether we like it or not, there are going to be intelligent people who misinterpret Lilypond's requirements in this case, and will perhaps not want to believe that such sophisticated software could be so naive/stupid/buggy/whatever as to not take into account its own \key declaration. It might be said that these are people who are thinking only about marks on paper and not about the sound itself - but Lilypond's whole purpose is to make marks on paper, so wouldn't it be expected that at least some people would think that way? The state of music education in the world — and especially North America — is already dire enough; let's not accelerate the slide by dumbing down notation entry under some misplaced desire to make computer engraving easier. It would save typing Yes... that's what we, as musicians, should be worried about... =\ it would make the notes blocks easier to read, for /musicians/ that is. I could not disagree with you more. (I have to side with Kieren on this little argument about Lilypond syntax, but I think the documentation would benefit from being modified so that it also makes sense *from David's point of view* - this is not some stupid misunderstanding, but a genuinely different perception of the process.) -- (another David) David Rogers ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
David Rogers wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 08:03, Kieren MacMillankieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote: I can't remember who in this thread first suggested that when you play an instrument you follow the key signature, but this notion is silly — and ultimately harmful (to music education). That would be me. David Rogers wrote: When *you* play music, you know that you need to follow the key signature in order to play the correct notes. Lilypond, on the other hand, *never* follows the key signature - you must always type the sharp, flat, or natural that you want the musicians to perform, even if you have already specified it in the key signature. For the impatient reader: I'm on Kieren's side... :-) I see your point, I guess. But I'm pretty sure most people on this list are convinced that LilyPond actually _does_ follow the key signature, just not the way this very user wants it to be. LilyPond is built to typeset music as a professional engraver would do. But it's also about the flexibility in the output. We want to be able to get MIDI output, part combining, extracts from scores, as well as other, more fancy stuff. Suppose I have to - in my view - disregard the key signature, so I have to write f to get an f sharp-sounding note in a piece with key signature g major. This means I can't possibly use this music definition for MIDI output, without specifying the key signature (which is just a shortcut in the printout, basically), but I have to adapt it accordingly. I know. It's possible, like we have the \relative command - but it means an additional and highly non-trivial conversion step, if you consider everything which can be done in LilyPond. To me, it's the same as saying: Well, this quarter note is merely a third of this \time 3/4 measure. So I'll better specify it as a 1/3 note, since I may change the timing (which amounts to transposition in the pitch context) of this measure later on, but it has to sound the same. Which is certainly understandable - it's just not how people tend to think. Okay, you say, I don't want to bother with remembering those few glyphs at the start of a line. Let's just write f instead of fis, since we don't see an accidental printed in front of it; we can translate it for MIDI somehow, using a \relativeKey command or something. But in essence this means, I'm bothering about when an accidental is necessary myself. Now assume you want the same melody in another printed context. Say you want additional cautionary accidentals when writing a tenor voice together with the bass in the same staff to spare paper (which, by the way, also probably means that the clef changes, so you can't refer to the second staff line or something), but you also want to be able to get a version with one staff per voice, where the cautionaries are merely confusing. Right. You can write a converter. But even with this you were forced to always reinterprete and re-evaluate your _own_ input when tweaking the score, w.r.t. the printed version you just happen to have lying around. I'm a very enthusiastic fan of not forcing people to think the way machines do, but the other way around. But this just sounds plainly wrong to me. Cheers, Alexander ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi David, Whether we like it or not, there are going to be intelligent people who misinterpret Lilypond's requirements in this case, and will perhaps not want to believe that such sophisticated software could be so naive/stupid/buggy/whatever as to not take into account its own \key declaration. Here's where the problem lies, and — with all due respect — it's (still) not with Lilypond, it's with the user. A key signature — whether hand-written (e.g., on manuscript paper) or computer engraved (e.g., by Lilypond) — is simply (and always will be) a *shorthand* for notating pitches in printed form with accidentals on every (necessary) pitchclass/note. For example, I could write out Schubert's Impromptu in G-flat major *completely without a key signature* (i.e., in C major): it would simply require a huge number of accidentals in order to communicate the correct pitches to the performer. Many times when I'm composing, I'll start without a key signature and only assign one later (in order to make the performers' job easier), or vice versa. A perfect example is the fifth variation of my commissioned quartet that was premiered last month: I composed it (i.e., on my manuscript paper) with a D-major key signature, because that was the central tonality of the variation; however, I ended up engraving it (i.e., generated the score using Lilypond) without a key signature, because it was chromatic enough that I believed readability would be improved by accidentalizing every note, instead of requiring the players to compute the current pitch class (with all the previous accidentals in that measure) against a two- sharp key signature. Not only does that example demonstrate why key signatures exist to begin with, it also shows how Lilypond's text entry (and concomitant transposition and re-keying mechanism) saved me a huge amount of work: if I had to un-key-signaturize the entire variation — because Lilypond's text entry didn't have the pitch alterations built in to the note names — it would have taken me a painfully long time. this is not some stupid misunderstanding, but a genuinely different perception of the process. Fair enough... but I posit that it is not Lilypond's place to teach someone music theory or how to think in the (standard) Western notation system, especially when it flies in the face of nearly a thousand years of notational practice. That being said, nobody's stopping anyone who wants to write a Scheme function that would support such a beast: that's the beauty of open source software! ;) I would just hope (and certainly voice my desire) that the powers that be — Han-Wen, Graham, etc. — would not add such a function to the base distribution, nor give it any serious face-time in the documentation. Best regards, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi David (et al),
Just to be absolutely clear, the fallacy in your argument lies in the
following statement:
It's necessary to consider the sound of the music,
*and not the conventional rules of printed scores*
when doing Lilypond pitch input.
Quite the contrary, the conventional rules of printed scores DO
consider (incorporate) the sound of the music — that's why the
Western notation system works as well as it does (despite some flaws/
shortcomings, and countless attempts to replace it with a superior
alternative).
Let's start by considering the CRoPS with respect to a simple
notation example. If the key signature is D major (i.e., two sharps),
and the pitch class [!!] being displayed is the top line of the
treble clef (i.e., F), then the CRoPS tells us that the actual pitch
that should be performed is an F-sharp (i.e., fis'').
Now, let's do Lilypond pitch input for this same example. You want
Lilypond to output an F-sharp at the top of the treble clef, and
display the result in D major (i.e., with a D major key signature).
Step 1 is to define/list the pitch(es) you want engraved:
theMusic = { fis'' }
Step 2 is to build the score, with clef and key signature:
\score { \new Staff \key d \major \clef treble \theMusic }
Doing the same thing *without* the pitch alteration (sharp) in
theMusic definition exposes the fundamental problem with a follow-
the-key-signature approach.
Hope this helps!
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Message: 3 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:24:51 +0100 From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca Subject: Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals To: Leonardo Herrera leonardo.herr...@gmail.com Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org Message-ID: 20090825182451.gb29...@sapphire Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:05:45AM -0400, Leonardo Herrera wrote: I do have a suggestion: I would add two examples to the section that shows this clearly. How is that more clear than: In this example: \key d \major d cis fis No note has a printed accidental, but you must still add is and type cis and fis in the input file. The code b does not mean “print a black dot just on the middle line of the staff.� Rather, it means “there is a note with pitch B-natural.� In the key of A-flat major, it does get an accidental: \key aes \major b If the above seems confusing, consider this: if you were playing a piano, which key would you hit? If you would press a black key, then you must add -is or -es to the note name! -- The hint at the end about black keys doesn't work for b- and e-sharp, nor c- and f-flat, nor double-sharps and flats. What about something like this: If the above seems confusing, imagine someone asks you for the first four notes of Beethoven's fifth. If you say, g, g, g, e-flat, you are correct. However, if you say g, g, g, e, you are wrong and will be corrected by any theory teacher within a fifty-foot radius as follows: That's an e-flat, not an e. Have a look at the key signature. Unlike the theory teacher above, Lilypond doesn't know the answers ahead of time and assumes you know what you're doing. The way you say note-names out loud at sounding pitch corresponds directly to the way you enter pitches into a Lilypond score. That means no matter what key signature you put in front of it, Beethoven's fifth always starts with g g g ees when input into a Lilypond score. --- I say sounding pitch so that it covers transposing instruments as well. -Jonathan Really, all the info is already there. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:58, Kieren
MacMillankieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote:
Hi David (et al),
Just to be absolutely clear, the fallacy in your argument lies in the
following statement:
It's necessary to consider the sound of the music,
*and not the conventional rules of printed scores*
when doing Lilypond pitch input.
Quite the contrary, the conventional rules of printed scores DO consider
(incorporate) the sound of the music — that's why the Western notation
system works as well as it does (despite some flaws/shortcomings, and
countless attempts to replace it with a superior alternative).
Let's start by considering the CRoPS with respect to a simple notation
example. If the key signature is D major (i.e., two sharps), and the pitch
class [!!] being displayed is the top line of the treble clef (i.e., F),
then the CRoPS tells us that the actual pitch that should be performed is an
F-sharp (i.e., fis'').
Now, let's do Lilypond pitch input for this same example. You want
Lilypond to output an F-sharp at the top of the treble clef, and display the
result in D major (i.e., with a D major key signature).
Step 1 is to define/list the pitch(es) you want engraved:
theMusic = { fis'' }
Step 2 is to build the score, with clef and key signature:
\score { \new Staff \key d \major \clef treble \theMusic }
Doing the same thing *without* the pitch alteration (sharp) in theMusic
definition exposes the fundamental problem with a follow-the-key-signature
approach.
I know that. I think Lilypond is operating correctly here, that this
part of the code should be kept as is with nothing added, and that
those users who wish it operated differently are making a mistake, for
exactly the reasons you've just pointed out.
HOWEVER, I think it's necessary to explain this issue *in their terms*
in the documentation, so that they can stop being confused by a
perfectly good (but logically backwards *to them*) implementation,
letting them get on with their work.
--
David Rogers
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 01:34:28PM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: I would just hope (and certainly voice my desire) that the powers that be — Han-Wen, Graham, etc. — would not add such a function to the base distribution, nor give it any serious face-time in the documentation. Rest assured that the powers that be are not giving any serious time (face or not) to this discussion. We had two clueless users. At least one of them skipped over the LM in complete violation of the intended reading order. The new website clarifies this problem. I've slightly edited the relevant section, in particular adding some info for non-musically-skilled people. As far as I'm concerned, this closes the discussion. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:33:08AM -0400, David Raleigh Arnold wrote: It is also perfectly reasonable for a person who has been writing music for decades for it to make no sense. Why? Because it makes no sense, and never did. Welcome to Western musical notation. If you want something to make sense, play guitar hero. Why not a \followKeySignature command? No. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:01:05PM -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: If the above seems confusing, consider this: if you were playing a piano, which key would you hit? If you would press a black key, then you must add -is or -es to the note name! The hint at the end about black keys doesn't work for b- and e-sharp, nor c- and f-flat, nor double-sharps and flats. Yes, but most novices with no knowledge of lilypond or music theory won't be writing in 5 sharps or flats, double-sharps or flats, or b/c e/f sharp/flats. What about something like this: If the above seems confusing, imagine someone asks you for the first four notes of Beethoven's fifth. If you say, g, g, g, e-flat, you are correct. However, if you say g, g, g, e, you are wrong and will be corrected by any theory teacher within a fifty-foot radius as follows: That's an e-flat, not an e. Have a look at the key signature. Unlike the theory teacher above, Lilypond doesn't know the answers ahead of time and assumes you know what you're doing. The way you say note-names out loud at sounding pitch corresponds directly to the way you enter pitches into a Lilypond score. That means no matter what key signature you put in front of it, Beethoven's fifth always starts with g g g ees when input into a Lilypond score. Too verbose. It also relies on knowledge of Beethoven's fifth [symphony]. Do people in China know classical Western music that well? What about a banjo players who's only done fiddle tunes? It's true that the piano example won't be understood by somebody who's never seen a piano before, but at a certain point there's nothing we can do other than pointing people at a music theory website or whatever. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 08:54, James E. Baileyderhindem...@googlemail.com wrote: It is actually perfectly reasonable for a person completely new to notating music for this to not make sense. Yes, I suppose it is. A suggestion for addition to the documentation, section 2.2.1: When *you* play music, you know that you need to follow the key signature in order to play the correct notes. Lilypond, on the other hand, *never* follows the key signature - you must always type the sharp, flat, or natural that you want the musicians to perform, even if you have already specified it in the key signature. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi guys correct me if I am wrong. The g minor chord has two flats Eb Bb which need to be marked as es and bes in Lilypond other wise the Accidental_engraver sees them as naturals in the g minor chord, hence the natural symbol for any unmarked E or B note in your music. Just trying to see if I understand this all correctly? How did I do? Simon On 25/08/2009, at 01:39, Sona wrote: I'm new to Lilypond and the list. So far the code is pretty intuitive, but I am stumped by the way accidentals work. Several posts deal with this subject, but probably are beyond a novice's ability to undertand. I'm transcribing a modern piece with 2 flats in the key signature (I've set \key g \minor). It's rather atonal, though, so it seems Lilypond tries to correct pitch by turning every e-flat and b-flat into a natural. What code do I use to override this? The printed result should have only 4 accidentals. Right now there are 37, and of course the pitches are all off. What do I put where in what part of the code? I can send my page code, if it would be helpful. Thanks in advance! cleo ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Correct. *ALL* pitches in the input *must* be explicitly given. The key signature assignment tells LilyPond how to display the pitches. For exmaple; 'e' *always* means e-natural no matter what the key signature is. -David Simon Mackenzie wrote: Hi guys correct me if I am wrong. The g minor chord has two flats Eb Bb which need to be marked as es and bes in Lilypond other wise the Accidental_engraver sees them as naturals in the g minor chord, hence the natural symbol for any unmarked E or B note in your music. Just trying to see if I understand this all correctly? How did I do? Simon On 25/08/2009, at 01:39, Sona wrote: I'm new to Lilypond and the list. So far the code is pretty intuitive, but I am stumped by the way accidentals work. Several posts deal with this subject, but probably are beyond a novice's ability to undertand. I'm transcribing a modern piece with 2 flats in the key signature (I've set \key g \minor). It's rather atonal, though, so it seems Lilypond tries to correct pitch by turning every e-flat and b-flat into a natural. What code do I use to override this? The printed result should have only 4 accidentals. Right now there are 37, and of course the pitches are all off. What do I put where in what part of the code? I can send my page code, if it would be helpful. Thanks in advance! cleo ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
In response to Graham and others who have expressed frustration about people who have failed to pickup on accidentals. It can be very difficult for fist time novices like myself to understand implicit information about what is a reasonably technical musical concept. I spent four hours last night pouring through web site tutorials and only now do I understand why the tutorial puts so much emphasis on accidentals. Prior to this accidentals and the emphasis in the tutorial on accidentals made no sense to me at all. When I have more time I'll develop this more fully for the sake of others because I know it will help to fill out my understanding further. Simon On 25/08/2009, at 02:02, Graham Percival wrote: On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:39:37AM -0700, Sona wrote: I'm new to Lilypond and the list. So far the code is pretty intuitive, but I am stumped by the way accidentals work. Several posts deal with this subject, but probably are beyond a novice's ability to undertand. No. Those posts tried a horrible solution which didn't fix anything. This *is* well within a novice's ability understand. Please read chapter 2 of the Learning Manual. Tutorial-Simple notation-Key signatures and Accidentals. (or something like that) I'm transcribing a modern piece with 2 flats in the key signature (I've set \key g \minor). It's rather atonal, though, so it seems Lilypond tries to correct pitch by turning every e-flat and b-flat into a natural. It sounds like your input contained e-natural and b-natural. You probably wanted to write ees and bes in your input file. Seriously, have you read the tutorial? If so, why did you skip over the big warning about accidentals? This is the second person recently to not notice that warning; should we make it bigger, or add a red background, or something? - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Dienstag, 25. August 2009 10:09:53 schrieb Simon Mackenzie: The g minor chord has two flats Eb Bb Exactly. This means that a note that is displayed on the middle staff line without any accidental is actually a B-flat, not a B. In Lilypond you have to enter the real pitches, so you have to enter a b-flat. If you enter only b, then lilypond assumes you really want a b, which means that lilypond needs to print a natural, because the key signature says that without it a note on the middle staff line means a b-flat. If you know the piano, you can think of each key on the piano having one name (b, b-flat, etc.) and if you want one particular key on the keyboard being pressed, you need to use that name. Don't think of okay, that note should be displayed on the middle staff line. The middle staff line means b, so I have to enter b. This is wrong, since the middle staff line can mean either b, b-flat or b-sharp, depending on the key signature. Cheers, Reinhold - -- - -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKk5/pTqjEwhXvPN0RAsPDAKC+aT0ob7bfPXHYCeZwB82oqfrmMQCgyTWU Roo3cpqCOP6Cb+glBJKS6JU= =e98W -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
As a follow-up, have the people with unwanted accidentals seen this: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/user/lilypond-learning/Accidentals-and-key-signatures#Key-signatures ...and is it not clear? The last example on that page shouldn't be any less clear than the example I gave. -David David Bobroff wrote: Correct. *ALL* pitches in the input *must* be explicitly given. The key signature assignment tells LilyPond how to display the pitches. For exmaple; 'e' *always* means e-natural no matter what the key signature is. -David Simon Mackenzie wrote: Hi guys correct me if I am wrong. The g minor chord has two flats Eb Bb which need to be marked as es and bes in Lilypond other wise the Accidental_engraver sees them as naturals in the g minor chord, hence the natural symbol for any unmarked E or B note in your music. Just trying to see if I understand this all correctly? How did I do? Simon On 25/08/2009, at 01:39, Sona wrote: I'm new to Lilypond and the list. So far the code is pretty intuitive, but I am stumped by the way accidentals work. Several posts deal with this subject, but probably are beyond a novice's ability to undertand. I'm transcribing a modern piece with 2 flats in the key signature (I've set \key g \minor). It's rather atonal, though, so it seems Lilypond tries to correct pitch by turning every e-flat and b-flat into a natural. What code do I use to override this? The printed result should have only 4 accidentals. Right now there are 37, and of course the pitches are all off. What do I put where in what part of the code? I can send my page code, if it would be helpful. Thanks in advance! cleo ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Sorry but as a first time user to lilypond and music in general this section in the tutorial was about as clear as mud to me. Not wanting to offend anyone just stating how I felt the fist time I read this section in the learning tutorial. As I said previously when I have time I'll have a shot at articulating this more fully to aid my learning further and help others who have been tripped up Accidental(ly). Simon On 25/08/2009, at 15:34, David Bobroff wrote: As a follow-up, have the people with unwanted accidentals seen this: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/user/lilypond-learning/Accidentals-and-key-signatures#Key-signatures ...and is it not clear? The last example on that page shouldn't be any less clear than the example I gave. -David David Bobroff wrote: Correct. *ALL* pitches in the input *must* be explicitly given. The key signature assignment tells LilyPond how to display the pitches. For exmaple; 'e' *always* means e-natural no matter what the key signature is. -David Simon Mackenzie wrote: Hi guys correct me if I am wrong. The g minor chord has two flats Eb Bb which need to be marked as es and bes in Lilypond other wise the Accidental_engraver sees them as naturals in the g minor chord, hence the natural symbol for any unmarked E or B note in your music. Just trying to see if I understand this all correctly? How did I do? Simon On 25/08/2009, at 01:39, Sona wrote: I'm new to Lilypond and the list. So far the code is pretty intuitive, but I am stumped by the way accidentals work. Several posts deal with this subject, but probably are beyond a novice's ability to undertand. I'm transcribing a modern piece with 2 flats in the key signature (I've set \key g \minor). It's rather atonal, though, so it seems Lilypond tries to correct pitch by turning every e-flat and b- flat into a natural. What code do I use to override this? The printed result should have only 4 accidentals. Right now there are 37, and of course the pitches are all off. What do I put where in what part of the code? I can send my page code, if it would be helpful. Thanks in advance! cleo ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Aug 25, 2009, at 3:50 AM, Simon Mackenzie wrote: Sorry but as a first time user to lilypond and music in general this section in the tutorial was about as clear as mud to me. Not wanting to offend anyone just stating how I felt the fist time I read this section in the learning tutorial. I'm not sure why this is difficult. In the code you must write the note you want. If you want a B flat, you must write bes (if using the default language for LilyPond). If you want B you write b and if you want B# you write bis. LilyPond cannot guess whether you want B, Bb or B#. It seems to me that by the end of the text under the two examples about accidentals, this should be straightforwardly clear. Is there some way of phrasing this that would have made it clearer for you? BTW, doing it this way is what allows LilyPond to transpose music to different keys cleanly and accurately. This makes life so much easier for the user when arranging for horns and other transposing instruments, doing orchestral music, jazz, transposing for singers, etc. For the developers, I think that something is confusing here for English speakers: the use of -es and -is for flatted and sharped notes as the default. I was initially bewildered by this, not knowing that the default conventions are Dutch. This seems odd given that the default language for the Web site and documentation is pretty much English, so I think some confusion on the part of newbies when Dutch is used in the code can be forgiven. If the user is new to music in general then they have set themselves a daunting task trying to score music with LilyPond. There is no way for the documentation to make up for the user's lack of knowledge about the structure of music. My condolences there but I see no responsibility for the LilyPond documentation to tutor users in music, only in the use of the program. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:34 AM, David Bobroffbobr...@centrum.is wrote: As a follow-up, have the people with unwanted accidentals seen this: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/user/lilypond-learning/Accidentals-and-key-signatures#Key-signatures ...and is it not clear? The last example on that page shouldn't be any less clear than the example I gave. I do have a suggestion: I would add two examples to the section that shows this clearly. Warning: key signatures and pitches Please take a close look at the following examples: Example a: c d e f g a b Example b: \key cis \major c d e f g a b To determine whether to print an accidental, LilyPond examines the pitches and the key signature. The key signature only affects the printed accidentals, not the note’s pitch! This is a feature that often causes confusion to newcomers, so let us explain it in more detail. [...] -- Leonardo Herrera mailto:leonardo.herr...@gmail.com http://leus.epublish.cl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
It is actually perfectly reasonable for a person completely new to notating music for this to not make sense. The purpose of the documentation is to provide information about how lilypond prints music. Other resources are necessary to provide information about the difference, both written and sounded of a note and the various accidentals that can change a note. One big (in my opinion, reasonable) assumption made by the LilyPond documentation is that anyone using the program will be familiar with musical terms and what they mean. Hopefully in english, but there's even a glossary for foreign language speakers. On 25.08.2009, at 10:50, Simon Mackenzie wrote: Sorry but as a first time user to lilypond and music in general this section in the tutorial was about as clear as mud to me. Not wanting to offend anyone just stating how I felt the fist time I read this section in the learning tutorial. As I said previously when I have time I'll have a shot at articulating this more fully to aid my learning further and help others who have been tripped up Accidental(ly). Simon On 25/08/2009, at 15:34, David Bobroff wrote: As a follow-up, have the people with unwanted accidentals seen this: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/user/lilypond-learning/ Accidentals-and-key-signatures#Key-signatures ...and is it not clear? The last example on that page shouldn't be any less clear than the example I gave. -David David Bobroff wrote: Correct. *ALL* pitches in the input *must* be explicitly given. The key signature assignment tells LilyPond how to display the pitches. For exmaple; 'e' *always* means e-natural no matter what the key signature is. -David Simon Mackenzie wrote: Hi guys correct me if I am wrong. The g minor chord has two flats Eb Bb which need to be marked as es and bes in Lilypond other wise the Accidental_engraver sees them as naturals in the g minor chord, hence the natural symbol for any unmarked E or B note in your music. Just trying to see if I understand this all correctly? How did I do? Simon On 25/08/2009, at 01:39, Sona wrote: I'm new to Lilypond and the list. So far the code is pretty intuitive, but I am stumped by the way accidentals work. Several posts deal with this subject, but probably are beyond a novice's ability to undertand. I'm transcribing a modern piece with 2 flats in the key signature (I've set \key g \minor). It's rather atonal, though, so it seems Lilypond tries to correct pitch by turning every e- flat and b-flat into a natural. What code do I use to override this? The printed result should have only 4 accidentals. Right now there are 37, and of course the pitches are all off. What do I put where in what part of the code? I can send my page code, if it would be helpful. Thanks in advance! cleo ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user James E. Bailey ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 08:46:59AM -0500, Tim McNamara wrote: For the developers, I think that something is confusing here for English speakers: the use of -es and -is for flatted and sharped notes as the default. I was initially bewildered by this, not knowing that the default conventions are Dutch. Well, the sentence immediately after the introduction of is/es/isis/eses says This syntax is derived from note naming conventions in Nordic and Germanic languages, like German and Dutch. (although that might have changed after you started using it) If the user is new to music in general then they have set themselves a daunting task trying to score music with LilyPond. There is no way for the documentation to make up for the user's lack of knowledge about the structure of music. Actually, in some ways there is -- the music glossary. And those links are at the top of every section in the Learning manual! So I'd say this: if somebody is new to music in general, doesn't read the Learning manual carefully, and doesn't read about unfamiliar terms in the music glossary, then they'll have a very daunting task. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:05:45AM -0400, Leonardo Herrera wrote: I do have a suggestion: I would add two examples to the section that shows this clearly. How is that more clear than: In this example: \key d \major d cis fis No note has a printed accidental, but you must still add is and type cis and fis in the input file. The code b does not mean “print a black dot just on the middle line of the staff.” Rather, it means “there is a note with pitch B-natural.” In the key of A-flat major, it does get an accidental: \key aes \major b If the above seems confusing, consider this: if you were playing a piano, which key would you hit? If you would press a black key, then you must add -is or -es to the note name! -- Really, all the info is already there. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Graham Percival wrote: On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 08:46:59AM -0500, Tim McNamara wrote: If the user is new to music in general then they have set themselves a daunting task trying to score music with LilyPond. There is no way for the documentation to make up for the user's lack of knowledge about the structure of music. Actually, in some ways there is -- the music glossary. And those links are at the top of every section in the Learning manual! I think you're right here. Nitpick: Shouldn't there be a see also: key signature in the music glossary 1.7 - accidental? Cheers, Alexander ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Without seeing your code we can only speculate about your problem. Having said that, however, new users often miss the point that LilyPond needs to be told the actual pitch of every note regardless of the key signature. If you're getting, for example, e-naturals when you want e-flats, be sure that you are coding for an e-flat. \key g \minor e ...will output an e-natural -David Sona wrote: I'm new to Lilypond and the list. So far the code is pretty intuitive, but I am stumped by the way accidentals work. Several posts deal with this subject, but probably are beyond a novice's ability to undertand. I'm transcribing a modern piece with 2 flats in the key signature (I've set \key g \minor). It's rather atonal, though, so it seems Lilypond tries to correct pitch by turning every e-flat and b-flat into a natural. What code do I use to override this? The printed result should have only 4 accidentals. Right now there are 37, and of course the pitches are all off. What do I put where in what part of the code? I can send my page code, if it would be helpful. Thanks in advance! cleo ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Hi Sona, I can send my page code, if it would be helpful. Yes, it would. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Montag, 24. August 2009 20:39:37 schrieb Sona: I'm new to Lilypond and the list. So far the code is pretty intuitive, but I am stumped by the way accidentals work. Several posts deal with this subject, but probably are beyond a novice's ability to undertand. I'm transcribing a modern piece with 2 flats in the key signature (I've set \key g \minor). It's rather atonal, though, so it seems Lilypond tries to correct pitch by turning every e-flat and b-flat into a natural. You have to write every e-flat really as an e flat, not as an e. If you write it as e, you will get an e (i.e. the natural!). Rather, you have to enter it as es. See http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond-learning/Accidentals-and-key-signatures.html And there in particular the last section Warning: key signatures and pitches. Hope that helps, Reinhold - -- - -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKkuB6TqjEwhXvPN0RAj35AKC1BKljlBfD4S6YWSxbFtzaYrNN3wCfftR2 5v9yN+Zjd4v3cgGn+7OUat8= =q38m -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:39:37AM -0700, Sona wrote: I'm new to Lilypond and the list. So far the code is pretty intuitive, but I am stumped by the way accidentals work. Several posts deal with this subject, but probably are beyond a novice's ability to undertand. No. Those posts tried a horrible solution which didn't fix anything. This *is* well within a novice's ability understand. Please read chapter 2 of the Learning Manual. Tutorial-Simple notation-Key signatures and Accidentals. (or something like that) I'm transcribing a modern piece with 2 flats in the key signature (I've set \key g \minor). It's rather atonal, though, so it seems Lilypond tries to correct pitch by turning every e-flat and b-flat into a natural. It sounds like your input contained e-natural and b-natural. You probably wanted to write ees and bes in your input file. Seriously, have you read the tutorial? If so, why did you skip over the big warning about accidentals? This is the second person recently to not notice that warning; should we make it bigger, or add a red background, or something? - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
I'm new to Lilypond and the list. So far the code is pretty intuitive, but I am stumped by the way accidentals work. Several posts deal with this subject, but probably are beyond a novice's ability to undertand. I'm transcribing a modern piece with 2 flats in the key signature (I've set \key g \minor). It's rather atonal, though, so it seems Lilypond tries to correct pitch by turning every e-flat and b-flat into a natural. What code do I use to override this? The printed result should have only 4 accidentals. Right now there are 37, and of course the pitches are all off. What do I put where in what part of the code? I can send my page code, if it would be helpful. Thanks in advance! cleo ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
Graham Percival wrote: It sounds like your input contained e-natural and b-natural. You probably wanted to write ees and bes in your input file. Seriously, have you read the tutorial? If so, why did you skip over the big warning about accidentals? This is the second person recently to not notice that warning; should we make it bigger, or add a red background, or something? I think it's more a matter of background knowledge and knowing the English terminology. If you don't know enough music theory to know what an accidental is, the warning might not help, even though we have fairly illustrative examples. Also, in Swedish, for example, the word for accidentals is actually used to denote sharps, flats and naturals in general, both when used in key signatures and when used as accidentals, which might increase the risk of confusion. /Mats ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals--THANKS!
Thank you to all for setting me straight. It's working for me now :-)) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
