Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Trevor Daniels schrieb: Carl Sorensen wrote Friday, July 24, 2009 2:07 PM On 7/24/09 6:16 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: The structure of the Notation Reference is designed to accommodate documenting this. The specialist sections in NR 2 would contain an indexed description of all the uses of crossed note heads. For example, under "Common notation for wind instruments" would appear "key-slap" and "sub-tone", with a pointer to the description of crossed note heads, which is already described in NR 1.1.4 Note heads (#'style=#'cross). Other uses of crossed note heads should be documented similarly in the appropriate specialist sections. Recognizing that we may want to change noteheads to various styles, and that we may want to mix styles in a chord, it might be a good idea to define a function \changeNoteHead that accepts a style parameter, and then define \xHead as \changeNoteHead #'cross. I'm confused or missing something. What's wrong with xHeadOn = \override NoteHead #'style = #'cross xHeadOff = \override NoteHead #'style = #'() which works now? The discussion led aside from the initial idea for \deadNote. This is a command that works in every situation and is therefor more user-friendly *and* it works with tablature, and this was the starting point of it all. When tablature features will be part of lilypond, I can just say c4 \deadNote d e f | < c \deadNote e g>4 and the cross will be visible in normal and in tablature staves. Of course this can be done with tweaking and overriding, but as Graham pointed out in a message some months ago, it would be the best if no scheme hacks will be necessary for standard notation (and dead notes are kind of standard in pop and rock music on guitar and bass). It is not that long ago that \override and \tweak were the reason for me not to use lilypond for my projects (ok, now I'm a bit more scheme-savvy, but this is another story). Marc I haven't tried this, and there may be some problems in making it work in a chord, but I think it's worth a try. This works but I don't know a way to invoke it with a \xHead shortcut. :-) Carl Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Graham Percival wrote Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:41 AM Subject: Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:18:42AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: Carl Sorensen wrote Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:13 PM \crossHeadsOn : turns on cross noteheads for all notes \crossHeadsOff : reverts cross noteheads for all notes \crossHead : makes the notes in the music expression following the occurrence have cross heads. Seems fine. I have a slight preference for the later suggestion of \xHeadsOn etc, just because they are shorter. I'd rather go for \crossHeadsOn, since it's less ambiguous. I mean, yes, a cross is an X shape, but it still doesn't feel as clear as \cross. I'm not so sure. Earlier Carl had to point out that cross meant an x, not +. Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:18:42AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: > > Carl Sorensen wrote Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:13 PM >> >> On 7/21/09 3:00 PM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: >>> >> So, if we follow this advice (which I think is good), I'd propose the >> following: >> >> \crossHeadsOn : turns on cross noteheads for all notes >> \crossHeadsOff : reverts cross noteheads for all notes >> \crossHead : makes the notes in the music expression following the >> occurrence have cross heads. >> > > Seems fine. I have a slight preference for the > later suggestion of \xHeadsOn etc, just because > they are shorter. I'd rather go for \crossHeadsOn, since it's less ambiguous. I mean, yes, a cross is an X shape, but it still doesn't feel as clear as \cross. One caution I'll throw in: the name may well change during GLISS (Grand Lilypond Input Syntax Standardization). In particular, one discussion we'll have is whether we should standardize on \notationElementModificationOn or \modificationNotationElementOn That said, we're not going to have this discussion right now, so there's basically a 50% chance that whatever you pick, it'll be changed next year anyway. Hate to be so pessimistic, but I think it's better for people to be aware of upcoming potential problems. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Carl Sorensen wrote Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:13 PM On 7/21/09 3:00 PM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: Given the wide variation in the use of the x-shaped note head I think the only possible name to use is one that reflects the shape of the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or similar - rather than trying to find a suitable generic name which adequately covers all these disparate uses. So, if we follow this advice (which I think is good), I'd propose the following: \crossHeadsOn : turns on cross noteheads for all notes \crossHeadsOff : reverts cross noteheads for all notes \crossHead : makes the notes in the music expression following the occurrence have cross heads. If we define those functions, they'll be generic, and apply to music of whatever sort. If necessary, syntactic sugar could be used to define (for the convenience of tablature users) \deadNotesOn -- set equal to \crossHeadsOn \deadNotesOff -- set equal to \crossHeadsOff \deadNote -- set equal to \crossHead How does this seem? Seems fine. I have a slight preference for the later suggestion of \xHeadsOn etc, just because they are shorter. Carl Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Carl Sorensen wrote Friday, July 24, 2009 2:07 PM On 7/24/09 6:16 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: The structure of the Notation Reference is designed to accommodate documenting this. The specialist sections in NR 2 would contain an indexed description of all the uses of crossed note heads. For example, under "Common notation for wind instruments" would appear "key-slap" and "sub-tone", with a pointer to the description of crossed note heads, which is already described in NR 1.1.4 Note heads (#'style=#'cross). Other uses of crossed note heads should be documented similarly in the appropriate specialist sections. Recognizing that we may want to change noteheads to various styles, and that we may want to mix styles in a chord, it might be a good idea to define a function \changeNoteHead that accepts a style parameter, and then define \xHead as \changeNoteHead #'cross. I'm confused or missing something. What's wrong with xHeadOn = \override NoteHead #'style = #'cross xHeadOff = \override NoteHead #'style = #'() which works now? I haven't tried this, and there may be some problems in making it work in a chord, but I think it's worth a try. This works but I don't know a way to invoke it with a \xHead shortcut. Carl Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
On 24 Jul 2009, at 14:54, Carl Sorensen wrote: So perhaps \xNote, \xNoteOn and \xNoteOff might be better. I prefer \xHead. What is being changed is the head, not anything else. I don't have a preference :-) - it just came to my mind. If we were changing stems and flags, then I'd prefer the Note name. This is just an implementation name - it would be easy to add synonyms, as was suggested. Such synonyms could later be altered to say in MIDI output have a different meaning, would somebody want to implement it. Just another thought :-). Hans ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Carl Sorensen schrieb: On 7/24/09 6:16 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: The structure of the Notation Reference is designed to accommodate documenting this. The specialist sections in NR 2 would contain an indexed description of all the uses of crossed note heads. For example, under "Common notation for wind instruments" would appear "key-slap" and "sub-tone", with a pointer to the description of crossed note heads, which is already described in NR 1.1.4 Note heads (#'style=#'cross). Other uses of crossed note heads should be documented similarly in the appropriate specialist sections. Recognizing that we may want to change noteheads to various styles, and that we may want to mix styles in a chord, it might be a good idea to define a function \changeNoteHead that accepts a style parameter, and then define \xHead as \changeNoteHead #'cross. I haven't tried this, and there may be some problems in making it work in a chord, but I think it's worth a try. Hm, I came across a usability problem: dead notes (aka \changeNoteHead #'cross) change NoteHeads and TabNoteHeads, whereas palm mute (aka \changeNoteHead #'do) changes only NoteHeads. (not that I had implemented \changeNoteHead, though!) Marc Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Mark Polesky schrieb:
Carl Sorensen wrote:
Recognizing that we may want to change noteheads to
various styles, and that we may want to mix styles in a chord, it
might be a good idea to define a function \changeNoteHead that accepts
a style parameter, and then define \xHead as \changeNoteHead #'cross.
I haven't tried this, and there may be some problems in making it work in a
chord, but I think it's worth a try.
What about
{ }
Then we are at the beginning again...
While working on tablature features, I was working on an easy way to
write dead notes. First, I had one command for single notes, as in
c d \deadNote e f
Then, I tried to expand this for chord constructs, as your tweak example
above, but in the form
< c \chordDeadNote e g >
At least, we (that is, mostly Carl and Neil) developed a command that
recognizes
where it is called, so one can use
c d \deadNote e < c \deadNote e g >.
So I strongly claim for using \xHead to bring the tablature support
forward, and if
it is possible to realize Carls proposals, it is an internal change
which doesn't
affect the syntax.
Marc
?
- Mark
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Carl Sorensen wrote:
> Recognizing that we may want to change noteheads to
> various styles, and that we may want to mix styles in a chord, it
> might be a good idea to define a function \changeNoteHead that accepts
> a style parameter, and then define \xHead as \changeNoteHead #'cross.
>
> I haven't tried this, and there may be some problems in making it work in a
> chord, but I think it's worth a try.
What about
{ }
?
- Mark
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
On 7/24/09 6:16 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: > > The structure of the Notation Reference is designed > to accommodate documenting this. The specialist > sections in NR 2 would contain an indexed description > of all the uses of crossed note heads. For example, > under "Common notation for wind instruments" would > appear "key-slap" and "sub-tone", with a pointer to the > description of crossed note heads, which is already > described in NR 1.1.4 Note heads (#'style=#'cross). > Other uses of crossed note heads should be documented > similarly in the appropriate specialist sections. Recognizing that we may want to change noteheads to various styles, and that we may want to mix styles in a chord, it might be a good idea to define a function \changeNoteHead that accepts a style parameter, and then define \xHead as \changeNoteHead #'cross. I haven't tried this, and there may be some problems in making it work in a chord, but I think it's worth a try. Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
On 7/24/09 3:06 AM, "Hans Aberg" wrote: > On 24 Jul 2009, at 07:58, Marc Hohl wrote: > >> I think it would be the easiest way to define a neutral name first. >> Personally, I like the idea of \xHead, \xHeadOn and \xHeadOff. > > I think so, too. In computer lingo terms, you want define two things: > the implementation, and the user interface. LilyPond does not provide > a means to hide away the implementation, but that is the same as in C. > > The implementation names would be the \xHead, \xHeadOn and \xHeadOff, > though strictly speaking, I think these are notes, not just heads - > the Unicode symbol U+1D143 MUSICAL SYMBOL X NOTEHEAD is just a head > without stem and flags. > > So perhaps \xNote, \xNoteOn and \xNoteOff might be better. I prefer \xHead. What is being changed is the head, not anything else. If we were changing stems and flags, then I'd prefer the Note name. Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Hans Aberg wrote Friday, July 24, 2009 10:06 AM On 24 Jul 2009, at 07:58, Marc Hohl wrote: I think it would be the easiest way to define a neutral name first. Personally, I like the idea of \xHead, \xHeadOn and \xHeadOff. I think so, too. In computer lingo terms, you want define two things: the implementation, and the user interface. LilyPond does not provide a means to hide away the implementation, but that is the same as in C. The implementation names would be the \xHead, \xHeadOn and \xHeadOff, though strictly speaking, I think these are notes, not just heads - the Unicode symbol U+1D143 MUSICAL SYMBOL X NOTEHEAD is just a head without stem and flags. So perhaps \xNote, \xNoteOn and \xNoteOff might be better. I would be happy with either \xNote or \xHead. The situation with crossed note heads is rather similar to placing parentheses round note heads. Both are used to convey a variety of musical intentions. For parentheses we have the \parenthesize command and for crossed note heads, by analogy, we should have \xHead (or \xNote). The structure of the Notation Reference is designed to accommodate documenting this. The specialist sections in NR 2 would contain an indexed description of all the uses of crossed note heads. For example, under "Common notation for wind instruments" would appear "key-slap" and "sub-tone", with a pointer to the description of crossed note heads, which is already described in NR 1.1.4 Note heads (#'style=#'cross). Other uses of crossed note heads should be documented similarly in the appropriate specialist sections. Trevor ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
On 24 Jul 2009, at 07:58, Marc Hohl wrote: I think it would be the easiest way to define a neutral name first. Personally, I like the idea of \xHead, \xHeadOn and \xHeadOff. I think so, too. In computer lingo terms, you want define two things: the implementation, and the user interface. LilyPond does not provide a means to hide away the implementation, but that is the same as in C. The implementation names would be the \xHead, \xHeadOn and \xHeadOff, though strictly speaking, I think these are notes, not just heads - the Unicode symbol U+1D143 MUSICAL SYMBOL X NOTEHEAD is just a head without stem and flags. So perhaps \xNote, \xNoteOn and \xNoteOff might be better. Hans ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Carl Sorensen schrieb: On 7/23/09 12:28 PM, "Kieren MacMillan" wrote: Hi Mark, is there a clear advantage to having a smaller namespace? No need to maintain crossrefs and aliases in the documentation. [Might not be a huge thing, but it's a "clear advantage".] I don't think it's necessary to maintain crossrefs. We have instrument-specific sections of the manual. Harmonics for string instruments can be introduced as \harmonic in the string instrument part of the notation. Silent presses (natural resonance) for keyboards can be taught in the keyboard part of the manual. The fact that both use diamond-shaped noteheads is irrelevant, as far as the manual is concerned, I think. Similarly, we can notate keySlap in woodwinds and deadNote in fretted strings. The fact that both use xNoteHead is irrelevant as far as the manual is concerned, IMO. I think it would be the easiest way to define a neutral name first. Personally, I like the idea of \xHead, \xHeadOn and \xHeadOff. We can add the desired aliases later (maybe it will lead to a file simply designed for this purpose, called aliases.ly?). Perhaps there is even a possibility to create a documentation comparable to the feta font glyphs which is generated automatically from the contents of the file, so there are all cross references included (I don't know if this would work). Marc Thanks, Carl ___ 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: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
On 7/23/09 12:28 PM, "Kieren MacMillan" wrote: > Hi Mark, > >> is there a clear advantage to having a smaller namespace? > > No need to maintain crossrefs and aliases in the documentation. > [Might not be a huge thing, but it's a "clear advantage".] I don't think it's necessary to maintain crossrefs. We have instrument-specific sections of the manual. Harmonics for string instruments can be introduced as \harmonic in the string instrument part of the notation. Silent presses (natural resonance) for keyboards can be taught in the keyboard part of the manual. The fact that both use diamond-shaped noteheads is irrelevant, as far as the manual is concerned, I think. Similarly, we can notate keySlap in woodwinds and deadNote in fretted strings. The fact that both use xNoteHead is irrelevant as far as the manual is concerned, IMO. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Hi Mark, is there a clear advantage to having a smaller namespace? No need to maintain crossrefs and aliases in the documentation. [Might not be a huge thing, but it's a "clear advantage".] Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Carl Sorensen wrote: > For me, I think the "correct musical semantics" argument overrides the > "don't expand the namespace" argument. Pardon my ignorance, but is there a legitimate downside to expanding the namespace? Does it affect performance speed? Eat up memory? Or is it just that it makes the program look more "clogged" with commands or something? I'm thinking of the comparison between LISP and Scheme. They say the entire Scheme standard is smaller than the index of the LISP standard, so it's more compact. I guess Scheme users might say "I don't want a whole bunch of features I'm never going to use". But I imagine LISP users might say "I wouldn't want to have to keep defining basic operators that Scheme removed from LISP". Is it a personal thing or is there a clear advantage to having a smaller namespace? Thanks. - Mark ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
On 7/22/09 8:29 AM, "Kieren MacMillan" wrote: > Hi all, > > Just adding my 2¢... > >>> I might disagree. I'm big on semantics, and I would rather have a >>> lot of commands that create the same look but mean different >>> things, than have one command that creates a look which could mean >>> a lot of different things. I don't know how people will be using >>> LilyPond in the future, but I'd like for the program not to get >>> stuck in ambiguous semantics. >> >> I agree with your concern with semantics. > > -1: I would much rather see one WISIWYG (What It Says Is What You > Get) function rather than multiple WIMGRITSCDF (What It Means Gets > Resolved Internally To Some Completely Different Function) functions. > First of all, it minimizes namespace crowding; secondly, it reduces > confusion and complexity in the docs (no need for crossrefs, etc.). > >> The user semantic would be worse. > > -1: The *composer-user* semantic might [!] be worse, but the > *engraver-user* semantic would be better. > >> There are two different kinds of semantics that apply. One is the >> semantic >> that the composer sees. The other is the semantic that the >> engraver sees. > > If by "engraver" you mean "person who is using Lilypond to engrave", > then +1. =) > > The main problem I see in this thread is that we're trying to turn > Lilypond into a *composing* application rather than thinking of it as > purely an *engraving* application: when I *compose* for strings (I > use pen and paper) I create/use/think "harmonics", but when I > *engrave* the score (I use Lilypond) I code/use/think "diamond". > I think I have a better definition now. Instead of "user" and "engraver", I want "music" and "engraving". The key objective of LilyPond is to have the author of a LilyPond input file specify only the musical semantics (i.e. the intended musical meaning). Then a perfect LilyPond would know exactly what to do with that musical meaning to make a perfectly-engraved score. "harmonics" is a muscial semantic; "diamond" is an engraving semantic. I think that the closer we get to musical semantics, the better LilyPond input is. As an example of this point, I cringe every time I have to tweak something to make it work, because I'm working in engraving semantics, not musical semantics. Moving slur control points is an example of this; there's no musical content at all in the location of slur control points; it's all engraving content. While I want to have access to the engraving content, I'd prefer never to have to touch it, because a perfect LilyPond would do all the engraving automatically. I'd tell it what I want musically; it would give me perfect output sheet music. For me, I think the "correct musical semantics" argument overrides the "don't expand the namespace" argument. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Sorry for the noise. I didn't think the first version of this email had succeeded. Paul Paul Scott wrote: Hans Aberg wrote: On 21 Jul 2009, at 20:20, Carl Sorensen wrote: ... a question come up about the name for some notation. In rock (and maybe jazz) guitar, there is a note described as a "dead note" that is notated in both tablature and staff notation with a cross-style notehead. This note is played on a muted string, so it gets rhythm but no real pitch. The code has been developed with the name \deadNotesOn, \deadNotesOff, and \deadNote. The same notation appears to be used in woodwinds for what is sometimes called a "ghost note". In my experience ghost notes are in parentheses. Paul Scott ___ 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: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Hans Aberg wrote: On 21 Jul 2009, at 20:20, Carl Sorensen wrote: ... a question come up about the name for some notation. In rock (and maybe jazz) guitar, there is a note described as a "dead note" that is notated in both tablature and staff notation with a cross-style notehead. This note is played on a muted string, so it gets rhythm but no real pitch. The code has been developed with the name \deadNotesOn, \deadNotesOff, and \deadNote. The same notation appears to be used in woodwinds for what is sometimes called a "ghost note". In my experience ghost notes are in parentheses. Paul Scott ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Hans Aberg wrote: On 21 Jul 2009, at 20:20, Carl Sorensen wrote: ... a question come up about the name for some notation. In rock (and maybe jazz) guitar, there is a note described as a "dead note" that is notated in both tablature and staff notation with a cross-style notehead. This note is played on a muted string, so it gets rhythm but no real pitch. The code has been developed with the name \deadNotesOn, \deadNotesOff, and \deadNote. The same notation appears to be used in woodwinds for what is sometimes called a "ghost note". In my experience ghost notes are in parentheses. Paul Scott ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Ian Hulin schrieb: Mark Polesky wrote: "Trevor Daniels" wrote: Given the wide variation in the use of the x-shaped note head I think the only possible name to use is one that reflects the shape of the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or similar - rather than trying to find a suitable generic name which adequately covers all these disparate uses. What do you guys think? - Mark \damped /music-expression/ with synonyms \crosshead /music-expression/ \guitarpizz /music-expression/ A guitar pizziccato is not indicated by cross head notes, so the latter will be misleading. Marc Cheers, Ian ___ 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: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Mark Polesky wrote: "Trevor Daniels" wrote: Given the wide variation in the use of the x-shaped note head I think the only possible name to use is one that reflects the shape of the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or similar - rather than trying to find a suitable generic name which adequately covers all these disparate uses. What do you guys think? - Mark \damped /music-expression/ with synonyms \crosshead /music-expression/ \guitarpizz /music-expression/ Cheers, Ian ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Hi all, Just adding my 2¢... I might disagree. I'm big on semantics, and I would rather have a lot of commands that create the same look but mean different things, than have one command that creates a look which could mean a lot of different things. I don't know how people will be using LilyPond in the future, but I'd like for the program not to get stuck in ambiguous semantics. I agree with your concern with semantics. -1: I would much rather see one WISIWYG (What It Says Is What You Get) function rather than multiple WIMGRITSCDF (What It Means Gets Resolved Internally To Some Completely Different Function) functions. First of all, it minimizes namespace crowding; secondly, it reduces confusion and complexity in the docs (no need for crossrefs, etc.). The user semantic would be worse. -1: The *composer-user* semantic might [!] be worse, but the *engraver-user* semantic would be better. There are two different kinds of semantics that apply. One is the semantic that the composer sees. The other is the semantic that the engraver sees. If by "engraver" you mean "person who is using Lilypond to engrave", then +1. =) The main problem I see in this thread is that we're trying to turn Lilypond into a *composing* application rather than thinking of it as purely an *engraving* application: when I *compose* for strings (I use pen and paper) I create/use/think "harmonics", but when I *engrave* the score (I use Lilypond) I code/use/think "diamond". There could be an argument that we don't want to unnecessarily expand the namespace +1. I think that your argument about having correct semantics is a valid argument. Meh... -1/2. ;) Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
On 7/21/09 9:01 PM, "Mark Polesky" wrote: > > > "Trevor Daniels" wrote: >> Given the wide variation in the use of the >> x-shaped note head I think the only possible >> name to use is one that reflects the shape of >> the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or >> similar - rather than trying to find a suitable >> generic name which adequately covers all these >> disparate uses. > > I might disagree. I'm big on semantics, and I would rather have a > lot of commands that create the same look but mean different > things, than have one command that creates a look which could mean > a lot of different things. I don't know how people will be using > LilyPond in the future, but I'd like for the program not to get > stuck in ambiguous semantics. I agree with your concern with semantics. > > Another (smaller) example I've been thinking about recently is the > diamond notehead. On a string instrument, it means to put your > finger lightly on the string to activate a specific harmonic node, > and we have the \harmonic command for that. But on the piano, a > diamond notehead usually means to push down that piano key > silently so its strings will vibrate sympathetically. There's no > \depressSilently command, and there's no \diamond command. Even > the glyph itself is called s0harmonic, so I'm stuck using > \harmonic in a case that has nothing to do with harmonics. (Well, > there *is* a diamond glyph, but it's not the same!) > > Anyway, what's the best solution to this? Imagine if we replaced > all uses of \harmonic with something like \diamond. Now strings > and pianos would be on equal terms (I guess), but a lot of > meaning would be lost. The user semantic would be worse. But the internal semantic would be better. There are two different kinds of semantics that apply. One is the semantic that the composer sees. The other is the semantic that the engraver sees. We often don't worry about the engraver semantics, since the engraver is just a program, and the program can do whatever it's told. But having good engraver semantics helps new developers become familiar with the code. Having the production of diamond noteheads be governed by \diamond would be good engraver semantics. Having \harmonic available as an alias to \diamond would be good semantics for string music. Having \depressSilently or \silentNote available as an alias to \diamond would be good semantics for keyboard music. I think it is possible to have all three, and that having all three may be the best thing to do semantically. There could be an argument that we don't want to unnecessarily expand the namespace, but I think that your argument about having correct semantics is a valid argument. And I think that the separation of engraver semantics from user semantics is also a valid distinction. We do this in programming all the time, even in LilyPond. We define an extent (a user semantic) as a pair (a Scheme semantic). Then, if we want to change the Scheme semantic for some reason, we can do so, leaving the user semantic in place. I believe it makes sense to do the same for music input, for the same reasons, where there is semantic user input. Thanks for starting the discussion on semantics. Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
David Raleigh Arnold schrieb: On Tuesday 21 July 2009, Mark Polesky wrote: "Trevor Daniels" wrote: Given the wide variation in the use of the x-shaped note head I think the only possible name to use is one that reflects the shape of the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or similar - rather than trying to find a suitable generic name which adequately covers all these disparate uses. XHead. daveA Yes, I think I could live with \xHeadOn, \xHeadOff and \xHead respectively. Marc ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
On Tuesday 21 July 2009, Mark Polesky wrote: > > "Trevor Daniels" wrote: > > Given the wide variation in the use of the > > x-shaped note head I think the only possible > > name to use is one that reflects the shape of > > the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or > > similar - rather than trying to find a suitable > > generic name which adequately covers all these > > disparate uses. XHead. daveA -- Very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Intermediate guitar solos, theory, banjo, harmonica. Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice. Compare Segovia's scale set with DGT: http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
TaoCG schrieb: Carl Sorensen-3 wrote: 2) For each of the instances you identified in part 1), what do you call the resulting note? I've never heard the term 'dead note' but 'ghost note' is very common. Doesn't matter if it's a string or wind instrument. Neither is it limited to woodwinds, it occurs in brass as well. Listen to Miles Davis, Chet Baker, etc. and you will hear this a lot. On guitar and bass, a ghost note has a parenthesized note head, whereas a dead note is plucked and dampened at the same time, so that you only hear the sound of the plucking. The pitch is used to clarify which sting you use (when there is no tablature), or to make sure that the damping finger is not moved away from its former position (because the same note is played normal style after the dead note, e.g.) For string instruments I experience this to be especially common among electric bass players. As a bass player, I found in every book of teaching bass that I own the term "dead note" (even in german book the english term is used). Regards, Tao ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Carl Sorensen-3 wrote: > > 2) For each of the instances you identified in part 1), what do you call > the > resulting note? > I've never heard the term 'dead note' but 'ghost note' is very common. Doesn't matter if it's a string or wind instrument. Neither is it limited to woodwinds, it occurs in brass as well. Listen to Miles Davis, Chet Baker, etc. and you will hear this a lot. For string instruments I experience this to be especially common among electric bass players. Regards, Tao -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Best-name-for-function-to-create-cross-style-noteheads-tp24593037p24600863.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: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
"Trevor Daniels" wrote: > Given the wide variation in the use of the > x-shaped note head I think the only possible > name to use is one that reflects the shape of > the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or > similar - rather than trying to find a suitable > generic name which adequately covers all these > disparate uses. I might disagree. I'm big on semantics, and I would rather have a lot of commands that create the same look but mean different things, than have one command that creates a look which could mean a lot of different things. I don't know how people will be using LilyPond in the future, but I'd like for the program not to get stuck in ambiguous semantics. Another (smaller) example I've been thinking about recently is the diamond notehead. On a string instrument, it means to put your finger lightly on the string to activate a specific harmonic node, and we have the \harmonic command for that. But on the piano, a diamond notehead usually means to push down that piano key silently so its strings will vibrate sympathetically. There's no \depressSilently command, and there's no \diamond command. Even the glyph itself is called s0harmonic, so I'm stuck using \harmonic in a case that has nothing to do with harmonics. (Well, there *is* a diamond glyph, but it's not the same!) Anyway, what's the best solution to this? Imagine if we replaced all uses of \harmonic with something like \diamond. Now strings and pianos would be on equal terms (I guess), but a lot of meaning would be lost. One more example... We have \stemup, \tieUp, \slurUp, \dynamicUp, etc. but those are all descriptive, not semantic. But we also have \voiceOne which conveys all of the visually descriptive stuff, and also conveys something which, as but one example, can be used by other programs in specific ways, when interfacing with LilyPond. What do you guys think? - Mark ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
On 7/21/09 3:00 PM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote: > > > Given the wide variation in the use of the > x-shaped note head I think the only possible > name to use is one that reflects the shape of > the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or > similar - rather than trying to find a suitable > generic name which adequately covers all these > disparate uses. > So, if we follow this advice (which I think is good), I'd propose the following: \crossHeadsOn : turns on cross noteheads for all notes \crossHeadsOff : reverts cross noteheads for all notes \crossHead : makes the notes in the music expression following the occurrence have cross heads. If we define those functions, they'll be generic, and apply to music of whatever sort. If necessary, syntactic sugar could be used to define (for the convenience of tablature users) \deadNotesOn -- set equal to \crossHeadsOn \deadNotesOff -- set equal to \crossHeadsOff \deadNote -- set equal to \crossHead How does this seem? Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Given the wide variation in the use of the x-shaped note head I think the only possible name to use is one that reflects the shape of the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or similar - rather than trying to find a suitable generic name which adequately covers all these disparate uses. Trevor - Original Message - From: "Mark Polesky" To: "Carl Sorensen" ; "lilypond" Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:55 PM Subject: Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads Carl Sorensen wrote: 1) What instances (other than a drum staff) are you aware of where a note uses a cross symbol rather than a standard note head? 2) For each of the instances you identified in part 1), what do you call the resulting note? Below I've listed all the uses of the x-shaped notehead that I could find in Kurt Stone's "Music Notation in the Twentieth Century". I may have missed some, but this should give you an idea. - Mark Woodwinds p.192 - key-slap p.195 - sub-tone Brasses p.198 - fingernails on bell p.199 - growl p.200 - mouthpiece pop (hand pop) p.204 - valve click Percussion p.219 - cymbals (sometimes) Harp p.249 - indeterminate low string(s) Organ p.275-277 - key-release Voice p.294 - unvoiced sound (tongue only, no vocal chords) p.298 - Sprechstimme p.298 - speaking voice p.303 - unvoiced vocal effects (tongue-clicks, lip-smacks, etc.) p.304 - whisper Bowed String Instruments p.307-308 - tapping or striking (with fingers, hand, or bow etc.) p.308 - bowing behind the bridge p.309 - bowing on top of the bridge p.315 - slapping the strings p.315 - bowing on the tailpiece Taped (Prerecorded) Sound p.317 - approximate pitches or pitch levels ___ 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: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
On 21 Jul 2009, at 21:18, Mark Polesky wrote: There is an informative section called "Unpitched Sounds" on p.190 of Kurt Stone's book. Basically he says unpitched sounds should be notated with x-shaped heads on an extra line (usually above the staff) with a textual performance direction written at first occurence, using opposing stem-directions or extra lines for two or more types. Long sections with one type and nothing else can go on a single-line staff. Note however that key-slaps on a flute or sax, also written with an x- head, can be pitched. So that excludes names like "unpitched note", I think. Blatter wrote the pitched key-slaps on an ordinary staff, and those of, as he terms it, unspecified pitch on a single line staff. "Unspecified pitch" suggests that it can be pitched, but it is left up to the discretion of the performer. Hans ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
There is an informative section called "Unpitched Sounds" on p.190 of Kurt Stone's book. Basically he says unpitched sounds should be notated with x-shaped heads on an extra line (usually above the staff) with a textual performance direction written at first occurence, using opposing stem-directions or extra lines for two or more types. Long sections with one type and nothing else can go on a single-line staff. Here are some uses mentioned by Gardner Read in his book "Music Notation" (that do not repeat what I already listed from Kurt Stone). To repeat something I've said in the past: In my opinion, Kurt Stone is far more authoritative than Gardner Read. - Mark Woodwind Notation p.351 - forceful blowing into a mouthpiece, indefinite tone. p.360 - striking mouthpiece or bell with open hand Jazz Notation p.412 - wire-brush (percussion) p.416 - plop ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
On 21 Jul 2009, at 20:20, Carl Sorensen wrote: I'd prefer to get the most useful name for the notation, but I'd also like to avoid instrument-specific names if possible. There is a Unicode name for it: MUSICAL SYMBOL X NOTEHEAD U+1D143 (And there is a list of noteheads up to U+1D15B MUSICAL SYMBOL CLUSTER NOTEHEAD BLACK.) Hans ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Carl Sorensen wrote: > 1) What instances (other than a drum staff) are you aware of > where a note uses a cross symbol rather than a standard note > head? > > 2) For each of the instances you identified in part 1), what do > you call the resulting note? Below I've listed all the uses of the x-shaped notehead that I could find in Kurt Stone's "Music Notation in the Twentieth Century". I may have missed some, but this should give you an idea. - Mark Woodwinds p.192 - key-slap p.195 - sub-tone Brasses p.198 - fingernails on bell p.199 - growl p.200 - mouthpiece pop (hand pop) p.204 - valve click Percussion p.219 - cymbals (sometimes) Harp p.249 - indeterminate low string(s) Organ p.275-277 - key-release Voice p.294 - unvoiced sound (tongue only, no vocal chords) p.298 - Sprechstimme p.298 - speaking voice p.303 - unvoiced vocal effects (tongue-clicks, lip-smacks, etc.) p.304 - whisper Bowed String Instruments p.307-308 - tapping or striking (with fingers, hand, or bow etc.) p.308 - bowing behind the bridge p.309 - bowing on top of the bridge p.315 - slapping the strings p.315 - bowing on the tailpiece Taped (Prerecorded) Sound p.317 - approximate pitches or pitch levels ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
On 21 Jul 2009, at 20:20, Carl Sorensen wrote: ... a question come up about the name for some notation. In rock (and maybe jazz) guitar, there is a note described as a "dead note" that is notated in both tablature and staff notation with a cross- style notehead. This note is played on a muted string, so it gets rhythm but no real pitch. The code has been developed with the name \deadNotesOn, \deadNotesOff, and \deadNote. The same notation appears to be used in woodwinds for what is sometimes called a "ghost note". Blatter, "Instrumentation/Orchestration", p. 79, uses such note-heads for saxes and flutes playing "key slap", that is, the sound is produced by closing the key heavily, without blowing, and in the course damaging the padding :-). They can be both pitched and of unspecified pitched. In the latter case, the staff is a single line. Hans ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads
Carl Sorensen wrote: > In rock (and maybe jazz) guitar, there is a note described as a "dead note" > that is notated in both tablature and staff notation with a cross-style > notehead. This note is played on a muted string, so it gets rhythm but no > real pitch. Just to clarify: a "cross-style" notehead looks like an "x" not a "+". - Mark ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
