Re: Pitches rewrite draft
On 10/1/07, Eyolf Østrem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 01.10.2007 (16:16), Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Some comments on Pitches > > > - move Micro tones into Accidentals. > > > > No, too specialist. Should it be moved into Specialist > > notation? Wherever it is it needs a link to Other languages. > > I say yes, in accordance with the general principle that everything > that belongs together, should be together, no matter how advanced or > basic it is. > Also, the "specialist notation" section is for "specialized > areas of use" (guitar, piano, ancient, etc) rather than "very advanced > features that only 20th-c. music freaks will ever need" :-) > > BTW, I've been thinking about that title... I was trying to find the > section on vocal music, which ought to be easy enough, but it took me > a while to find it there, even though I knew it was there. I didn't > think of it as "specialist" in any way. I think "specialized notation" > would make it a little better, but I'm not sure. FWIW, I'm not a fan of the specialist / nonspecialist distinction. All notation is specialist ... until you realize that you need it ... and then it suddenly becomes very ordinary. So I would put microtones right alongside the other accidentals. (So I vote with Eyolf.) -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Pitches rewrite draft
On 01.10.2007 (16:16), Trevor Daniels wrote: > Some comments on Pitches > > - move Micro tones into Accidentals. > > No, too specialist. Should it be moved into Specialist > notation? Wherever it is it needs a link to Other languages. I say yes, in accordance with the general principle that everything that belongs together, should be together, no matter how advanced or basic it is. Also, the "specialist notation" section is for "specialized areas of use" (guitar, piano, ancient, etc) rather than "very advanced features that only 20th-c. music freaks will ever need" :-) BTW, I've been thinking about that title... I was trying to find the section on vocal music, which ought to be easy enough, but it took me a while to find it there, even though I knew it was there. I didn't think of it as "specialist" in any way. I think "specialized notation" would make it a little better, but I'm not sure. -- Han Solo: You said you wanted to be around when I made a mistake, well, this could be it, sweetheart. Princess Leia: I take it back. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Pitches rewrite draft
Graham replied: > Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Graham wrote: > >> - move Micro tones into Accidentals. > > > > No, too specialist. Should it be moved into Specialist > > notation? Wherever it is it needs a link to > Other languages. > > I disagree with this, although I admit that I > can't come up with a good > reason. > > One of the things I was trying to do was to make > the new doc sections a > complete reference for each item. So Pitches > would include everything > about pitches, expressive marks would include > everything about that, etc. Ah, yes - I'd forgotten this principle, which I support. So I withdraw my comment - see below. > > Here's where my reasoning falls down: I admit > that this doesn't work > with Ancient music. Pitches->displaying->clefs > doesn't include ancient > music clefs, for example. I'm still confident > that the manual should be > split up this way, but I can't point to a general > principle to back me > up on this. :|(other than "our ancient music > support is a bit old, > no pun intended, so I'd rather hide it at the > back of the manual") > Is this a better reason? The section on Ancient music is very substantial and includes much more than just clefs. It is right that it forms a self-contained section within Specialist notation rather than attempting to split it up into its component parts - noteheads, clefs, rests, time signatures, etc. Splitting it would result in a loss in clarity rather than an increase (that's the reason). OTOH the section on Microtones is tiny (at least for the present) and concerns a single topic - accidentals. It therefore slips easily into Accidentals. However, we should be conscientious to add prominent links to the Ancient music section from all the standard parts - from Accidentals to Ancient accidentals, etc - to compensate. > Cheers, > - Graham Trevor > > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Pitches rewrite draft
On 01.10.2007 (13:12), Graham Percival wrote: > Trevor Daniels wrote: > >Graham wrote: > >>- move Micro tones into Accidentals. > >No, too specialist. Should it be moved into Specialist > >notation? Wherever it is it needs a link to Other languages. > I disagree with this, although I admit that I can't come up with a good > reason. > One of the things I was trying to do was to make the new doc sections a > complete reference for each item. So Pitches would include everything > about pitches, expressive marks would include everything about that, etc. > Here's where my reasoning falls down: I admit that this doesn't work with > Ancient music. Pitches->displaying->clefs doesn't include ancient music > clefs, for example. This should be solved through a cross-ref. I think the "reason" that you say you can't come up with, has to do with the question "Where would a user be most likely to go looking for it?" In the case of ancient music, it would be counter-intuitive and -productive to strictly follow any technical-analytical distinction, since the ancient music features come as a package: you would rarely write an ordinary score and then use a petrucci-g clef, e.g. (whereas "Modern music" is more about adding bits and pieces to "standard notation", hence it is justified to put the bits and pieces where they belong, technically). > I'm still confident that the manual should be split > up this way, but I can't point to a general principle to back me up on > this. :|(other than "our ancient music support is a bit old, no pun > intended, so I'd rather hide it at the back of the manual") I'm looking forward to taking part in the upcoming revision of the Ancient section :-) Eyolf -- Why do so many foods come packaged in plastic? It's quite uncanny. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Pitches rewrite draft
Trevor Daniels wrote: Graham wrote: - move Micro tones into Accidentals. No, too specialist. Should it be moved into Specialist notation? Wherever it is it needs a link to Other languages. I disagree with this, although I admit that I can't come up with a good reason. One of the things I was trying to do was to make the new doc sections a complete reference for each item. So Pitches would include everything about pitches, expressive marks would include everything about that, etc. Here's where my reasoning falls down: I admit that this doesn't work with Ancient music. Pitches->displaying->clefs doesn't include ancient music clefs, for example. I'm still confident that the manual should be split up this way, but I can't point to a general principle to back me up on this. :|(other than "our ancient music support is a bit old, no pun intended, so I'd rather hide it at the back of the manual") - do "note names in other lanuages" need anything more than cleaning up Yes: 1. The footnote which gives a reference to "Note names in other languages" in the subsection Accidentals should be promoted to the main text just after "These are the Dutch note names ... ". I agree. Actually, I think we should make a general rule to remove footnotes. 2. In the "Note names in other languages" subsection it does not actually say what the notation is for a simple sharp or flat in each of the languages (other than bes). I would agree it is pretty obvious, but should still be stated for completeness. Oops, that's just because the section is in the middle of formatting changes. The old table (currently commented out) shows this info, and that info will soon be migrated into the new table (which currently only has one row in it). 3. The link to double sharp in Accidentals is broken. Good catch! - I'm not too happy with Octave check, but I However, it is clearly more than a check (unlike bar check) since it actually corrects the octave too. Octave assertion, or, even better, octave affirmation, maybe? OTOH, it's most commonly used as a check, and then we have some unity in the manual with "* check". Also, why is there a link to Grace notes in the Clef section? I have honestly no idea. (either no disagreement, or waiting for other comments, for everything else) Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Pitches rewrite draft
Graham wrote:
> Ok, let's start the other half of real GDP work
> SEEKING COMMENTS / OFFERS OF HELP
Some comments on Pitches
> - move Cautionary accidentals into Accidentals.
Yes
> - move Micro tones into Accidentals.
No, too specialist. Should it be moved into Specialist
notation? Wherever it is it needs a link to Other languages.
> - do "note names in other lanuages" need anything
> more than cleaning up
Yes:
1. The footnote which gives a reference to "Note names in
other languages" in the subsection Accidentals should be
promoted to the main text just after "These are the Dutch
note names ... ".
2. In the "Note names in other languages" subsection it does
not actually say what the notation is for a simple sharp or
flat in each of the languages (other than bes). I would
agree it is pretty obvious, but should still be stated for
completeness.
3. The link to double sharp in Accidentals is broken.
> - need a @refbugs above the final paragraph of
> Relative octaves.
> - Relative octaves: should we omit the discussion
> about the default
>value of c' ? (ie \relative {} ) I believe
> that this construct is
> disliked by some developers and might disappear
> in the future, so should
> we start preparing newbies by never mentioning
> it? Or should we simply
> list this in the @refbugs section?
Tell it as it is. Remove the discussion and replace it with
a footnote which says default is c' now, but this might
change.
> (+1 leave them in)
> - I'm not too happy with Octave check, but I
> can't think of any specific
>change right now. Simply add to the list of
> "rewrite whole
> subsection"?
Yes - rewrite. I've read it several times and I'm still not
confident I know how it works without experimenting (I've
never used it). However, it is clearly more than a check
(unlike bar check) since it actually corrects the octave
too. Octave assertion, or, even better, octave affirmation,
maybe?
> - ditto for Transpose: rewrite whole subsection.
It's clearer than Octave check, but it could be improved.
Rewrite with real examples.
> - Key signature: should we move the warning
> ("accidentals and key
>signatures often confuse new users..." to the
> top of the page? Or
> omit it entirely, since users are supposed to
> have read the Learning
> Manual? for that matter, should the warnings in
> the Tutorial be
> beefed up?
Omit it entirely, but it might be helpful to repeat here
that notes must be entered with _all_ alterations shown
explicitly, even those altered implicitly by the key
signature in the printed output.
> - Instrument transposition: might need more
> explanation about \transpose
>vs. \transposition.
>
I find this section confusing too, perhaps because I am not
familiar with any of the transposing instruments. A few
real examples would be a big help.
> - anything else not in this list. :)
The Clef section could be improved. Needs to say first what
the three main clef symbols are, show what they look like,
say what they mean, mention percussion and tab clefs.
_Then_ go on to show the less common variations resulting
from changing their position on the staff.
Also, why is there a link to Grace notes in the Clef
section?
>
>
> Pitches is one of the most straightforward
> sections, so there's
> relatively little in this list. That said, if
> you don't like anything
> in the new Pitches section, please speak up now
> or forever hold your
> peace.
>
There you go - I've upspoken.
>
> Cheers,
> - Graham
Trevor
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
