GDP: six
http://lilypondwiki.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Doc ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: six
Just for the record: Ancient notation _could_ be split genre-wise into two separate chunks Gregorian Chant and Mensural Notation. However, for a _reference_ manual, I think it is ok as it currently is (e.g. having a single section on ligatures rather than separate ones per genre). For a _tutorial_, however, IMO you definitely would like to split it genre-wise. Greetings, Juergen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: six
Le 14.09.2007 17:23, Graham Percival disait : http://lilypondwiki.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Doc Sounds very promising. I like this progressive discovery. Just one question: due to the alignement and their timing effect, wouldn't it be judicious to move the grace notes to the 1.2.6 Special rhythmic concerns, at least through a link? Cheers, Jean-Charles ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: six
Jean-Charles Malahieude wrote: Just one question: due to the alignement and their timing effect, wouldn't it be judicious to move the grace notes to the 1.2.6 Special rhythmic concerns, at least through a link? Of course we'll have @seealso links everywhere in the manual. That's not a concern. That said, the timing effect argument has convinced me, so I moved grace notes into 1.2.6. Besides, I like having grace notes inside a subsection called special rhythmic concerns. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: six
2007/9/14, Juergen Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ancient notation _could_ be split genre-wise into two separate chunks Gregorian Chant and Mensural Notation. However, for a _reference_ manual, I think it is ok as it currently is (e.g. having a single section on ligatures rather than separate ones per genre). For a _tutorial_, however, IMO you definitely would like to split it genre-wise. I would be OK to split the Ancient notation. Thanks for suggesting, btw; feel free to suggest any other improvement you might think of, since this whole part would otherwise remain more or less untouched -- as most of us, when it comes to such subjects, are complete ignoramuses ;) Regards, Valentin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: six
Valentin Villenave wrote: 2007/9/14, Juergen Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ancient notation _could_ be split genre-wise into two separate chunks Gregorian Chant and Mensural Notation. However, for a _reference_ manual, I think it is ok as it currently is (e.g. having a single section on ligatures rather than separate ones per genre). For a _tutorial_, however, IMO you definitely would like to split it genre-wise. I would be OK to split the Ancient notation. Thanks for suggesting, btw; feel free to suggest any other improvement you might think of, since this whole part would otherwise remain more or less untouched -- as most of us, when it comes to such subjects, are complete ignoramuses ;) Actually, I'd rather leave Ancient notation completely untouched until somebody knowledgeable about it has the time to deal with it. (that doesn't just mean Juergen; there's other people around that use this) In any case, I think it's safe to leave it alone until GDP would naturally get to that section -- that will probably be in Dec or Jan. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: six
On 14.09.2007 (08:23), Graham Percival wrote: http://lilypondwiki.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Doc * 1 Notation Reference o 1.1 Pitches I don't like the sectioning of this one. Why is Transpose and Instrument transpositions split up? It doesn't make sense to me. Ottava brackets should also belong here somewhere. Also, Changing multiple pitches -- it sounds precise, but it isn't necessarily so. At least it sounds unnecessarily complex Join Note names in other languages with Writing pitches - that's where it belongs. That leaves Clef and Key signature, which might come first -- since it's fairly fundamental -- or last, since it falls a little on the side of the other items. Thus: o 1.1 Pitches + Clef + Key signature + Normal pitches + Note names in other languages + Accidentals + Cautionary accidentals + Micro tones + Relative octaves/Octave check + Transpositions + Ottava brackets o 1.4 Repeats + Repeats and MIDI I wonder: isn't it more natural to gather the midi stuff in one place and just have a cross reference here? After all, the page looks the same regardless of what the midi output sounds like; the person who is likely to need this information, will have trouble with his midi file and will be looking for it in the midi section, not primarily under repeats. At least I would. I did. o 1.7 Educational use (or increasing readibility ?) I don't like this one, I must say. Neither font size, improvisation, or shape notes or fingering have much to do with educational use in my book. I think font size should go in a page layout section or something (at least that's how I use it, but I can also see how it would fit here). The sections are ok, I guess, but please don't call it all educational use... How about Appearance Tweaks or something? o 1.15 Ancient notation I have no problem with this section -- and it is my area. Eyolf -- Brandy-and-water spoils two good things. -- Charles Lamb ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: six
Eyolf Østrem wrote:
On 14.09.2007 (08:23), Graham Percival wrote:
http://lilypondwiki.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Doc
* 1 Notation Reference
o 1.1 Pitches
I don't like the sectioning of this one. Why is Transpose and
Instrument transpositions split up? It doesn't make sense to me.
Ottava brackets should also belong here somewhere.
Instrument transpositions affects how pitches are displayed in cues and
on midi. Ottava displays how pitches are displayed.
Transpose affects the actual _pitches_. Remember our distinction
between content and presentation.
{ fis''' }
is that note, regardless of instrument transpositions or ottava. If we
stick \transpose, then fis''' will produce a different pitch.
Also, Changing multiple pitches -- it sounds precise, but it isn't
necessarily so. At least it sounds unnecessarily complex
I'm not wild about that name; please suggest an alternative.
Join Note names in other languages with Writing pitches - that's
where it belongs.
Note names in other languages _is_ in writing pitches.
That leaves Clef and Key signature, which might come first -- since
it's fairly fundamental -- or last, since it falls a little on the
side of the other items. Thus:
Again, these clearly affect the way we _display_ pitches, not the actual
_pitches_ themselves.
+ Repeats and MIDI
I wonder: isn't it more natural to gather the midi stuff in one place
and just have a cross reference here?
Repeats is slated for a huge rewrite anyway. I have no objection
whatsoever to removing this subsection and putting in a link. But
please raise this issue again when we come to Repeats (probably in 5 or
6 weeks), since I have many other issues to keep track of.
o 1.7 Educational use (or increasing readibility ?)
I don't like this one, I must say. Neither font size, improvisation,
or shape notes or fingering have much to do with educational use in my
book.
They make the music easier to read. Again, I'm not wild about the
section name, as you can tell from the (?) in the name.
I think font size should go in a page layout section or something (at
least that's how I use it, but I can also see how it would fit here).
The sections are ok, I guess, but please don't call it all educational
use... How about Appearance Tweaks or something?
hmm... I'd rather avoid the term tweaks, since we use that elsewhere
to mean \override stuff. Modifying appearance for legibility is too long.
(whoops, notation font size should go in inside the staff. fixed.)
I'm quite happy with having a section that includes those subsections,
but I'm seriously stumped as to what to call it.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: six
2007/9/14, Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED]: o 1.7 Educational use (or increasing readibility ?) They make the music easier to read. Again, I'm not wild about the section name, as you can tell from the (?) in the name. I'm quite happy with having a section that includes those subsections, but I'm seriously stumped as to what to call it. Some time ago, I had proposed Special effects, which was both fun and attractive -- John seemed to like it. However, Educational use is absolutely fine. I've seen many reactions here, these past few days, which I honestly couldn't understand at all (when people ranted against such terms as decorating, educational, or Rune's idea of a funny, childish logo). I mean: come on! Wasn't any of you guys a kid once? Why should music be *serious*stuff, and nothing else? Let me rephrase: LilyPond *is* perfect for educational purposes. Face it, once and for all. Playing with noteheads, staves appearance etc is *great* for having fun when reading music, learning solfege, etc. I'm speaking as a teacher (I work with both kids and grown-ups, sometimes in the same room at the same time), but also as a former kid myself. Sure, these notation effects are not reserved to education, as you said Eyolf. You use some of them in your book, so do I in my opera, and so on. But I think this would be a mistake to somehow hide the wonderful educational resources of LilyPond, and I surely hope that nobody here is trying to. Just some thoughts that I wanted to share with you. Regards, Valentin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: six
On 14.09.2007 (13:10), Graham Percival wrote:
Eyolf Østrem wrote:
I don't like the sectioning of this one. Why is Transpose and
Instrument transpositions split up? It doesn't make sense to me.
Ottava brackets should also belong here somewhere.
Instrument transpositions affects how pitches are displayed in cues and on
midi. Ottava displays how pitches are displayed.
Transpose affects the actual _pitches_. Remember our distinction between
content and presentation.
{ fis''' }
is that note, regardless of instrument transpositions or ottava. If we
stick \transpose, then fis''' will produce a different pitch.
Yes, but where are people going to be looking for it? Better to have
it under the same heading and explain that distinction there, instead
of having them scurrying from place to place between technically
distinct but conceptually related items.
Also, Changing multiple pitches -- it sounds precise, but it isn't
necessarily so. At least it sounds unnecessarily complex
I'm not wild about that name; please suggest an alternative.
My suggestion is (a) to let go of that level of sectioning, or (b) if
that isn't viable, call that section octaves and transposition or
something.
Join Note names in other languages with Writing pitches - that's
where it belongs.
Note names in other languages _is_ in writing pitches.
Sorry, I meant Normal pitches -- to a spaniard, si IS the normal
pitch, that's what I was getting at.
That leaves Clef and Key signature, which might come first -- since
it's fairly fundamental -- or last, since it falls a little on the
side of the other items. Thus:
Again, these clearly affect the way we _display_ pitches, not the actual
_pitches_ themselves.
To me, this borders on the level of technicalities. Much as I
appreciate the absolute pitch approach of Lilypond, I'm not so sure if
it enhances the usability of the manual to enforce that distinction in
how the material is presented. After all, cis IS not the actual
pitch itself either, it's some letters that are used to *represent*
(sounding) pitches in a different (written) notation.
But these theoretical issues apart, my main concern is with what to
me appears as unnecessary fragmentation. Then again, it's no hanging
matter.
+ Repeats and MIDI
I wonder: isn't it more natural to gather the midi stuff in one place
and just have a cross reference here?
Repeats is slated for a huge rewrite anyway. I have no objection
whatsoever to removing this subsection and putting in a link. But please
raise this issue again when we come to Repeats (probably in 5 or 6
weeks), since I have many other issues to keep track of.
OK.
o 1.7 Educational use (or increasing readibility ?)
I don't like this one, I must say. Neither font size, improvisation,
or shape notes or fingering have much to do with educational use in my
book.
They make the music easier to read.
Shape notes is not only about making it easier to read, is it? It's
closer to a notational system of its own. The affinities with
solmization are strong, and even though that too had an educational
function, it went way beyond that.
Fingering: sure, it's educational too, but again, I wouldn't have
thought of looking for it there. How about in the instrument section
somewhere?
Again, I'm not wild about the section
name, as you can tell from the (?) in the name.
I think font size should go in a page layout section or something (at
least that's how I use it, but I can also see how it would fit here).
The sections are ok, I guess, but please don't call it all educational
use... How about Appearance Tweaks or something?
hmm... I'd rather avoid the term tweaks, since we use that elsewhere to
mean \override stuff. Modifying appearance for legibility is too long.
What if one drops for legibility (since there can be many other
reasons to modify the appearance) and call it modifying appearance?
Eyolf
--
Debian is the Jedi operating system: Always two there are, a master and
an apprentice.
-- Simon Richter on debian-devel
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: GDP: six
Shape notes is not only about making it easier to read, is it? It's closer to a notational system of its own. The affinities with solmization are strong, and even though that too had an educational function, it went way beyond that. Fingering: sure, it's educational too, but again, I wouldn't have thought of looking for it there. How about in the instrument section somewhere? What about Editorial Notation Additions? Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
