Re: music expression explanation
Graham Percival wrote Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:53 PM
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 12:31:14PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Graham Percival wrote Saturday, April 25, 2009 10:13 AM
Eh?!?! You want to tell people to put articulation and dynamic
marks after the duration, before they've been told how to do
articulations and dynamics? Remember that the idea is to give a
general:
@var{pitch} @var{dur} @var{other}
No, you should. This thread has nothing to do
with articulation and dynamics. It is to to
with the relative order of octave marks and
durations.
Yes, the *initial* concern was over the relative order of octave
marks and durations. My *current* concern is that if it's
possible for people to get confused over
c4'
then surely they could also get confused over
c'\mf4
As often happens with these threads, the initial
point can easily get lost.
If so, there's two options:
1) give a general explanation of pitch-dur-other. In addition to
that order, explain that the order of other doesn't matter.
2) give an explanation of pitch-dur, then later on explain
pitch-dur-other (or maybe note-other, or something like that)
I thought that #1 would be best, but if you'd rather go with #2, I
have no objection.
I think we need both. Let's clear up the order of
octave marks and durations as I suggested in LM 2.1.2
with Simon's help. Then, because the order in which
items may appear in a notation element is quite complex
this needs to go in the Notation Reference, if it
is to be anything like comprehensive. Carl's
parser grammar will be useful as an appendix, but
something along the lines of the note Trevor Baca wrote
some time ago to explain the permitted order of items in
a notation element would be suitable, except I can't
find it now. Can anyone locate this?
Trevor
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: music expression explanation
Graham Percival wrote Friday, April 24, 2009 4:42 PM On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:10:37PM +0200, Simon Bailey wrote: Graham Percival wrote: If you have an idea for a general clarification that the syntax is pitch duration other, then I'm all for it. If it's a simple you need to put the ' before the duration, then I'd probably reject it as being insufficiently general. my first idea was something along the lines of your refusal. :) i do have some other ideas about how to explain the syntax, but they depend on where you want to put it in the docs. ... where would you put it in 3.1.? Hmm. I was initially thinking of 3.1.2, but that subsection (actually, the entire section) is really talking about *macroscopic* style. I mean, it refers back to the definition of a (compound) music expression. With that in mind, perhaps 2.3.1 is the best place: add 2-3 sentences and an articulation (or dynamic, or something) to the first paragraph+example. That said, this is really Trevor's area now. Let's see what he says. Thanks for the prompt! I think the best place is in 2.1.2 Simple notation, in the Durations (rhythms) section. This is where the entry of a duration is first mentioned, and it's immediately after introducing the ' and , marks. Perhaps immediately after the example there and before dotted notes are mentioned would be ideal. I'd be happy to receive a patch, Simon. Trevor ps One of my other hobbies (budgerigar genetics) is taking time at the moment, hence my back seat presence. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: music expression explanation
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 09:41:26AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Graham Percival wrote Friday, April 24, 2009 4:42 PM
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:10:37PM +0200, Simon Bailey wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
If you have an idea for a general clarification that the syntax is
pitch duration other, then I'm all for it. If it's a simple
you need to put the ' before the duration, then I'd probably
reject it as being insufficiently general.
That said, this is really Trevor's area now. Let's see what he
says.
Thanks for the prompt! I think the best place is in
2.1.2 Simple notation, in the Durations (rhythms) section.
This is where the entry of a duration is first mentioned,
and it's immediately after introducing the ' and , marks.
Eh?!?! You want to tell people to put articulation and dynamic
marks after the duration, before they've been told how to do
articulations and dynamics? Remember that the idea is to give a
general:
@var{pitch} @var{dur} @var{other}
You might want to take a second look through the rest of this
thread:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2009-04/msg00737.html
ps One of my other hobbies (budgerigar genetics) is
taking time at the moment, hence my back seat presence.
Colorful!
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: music expression explanation
trevor, graham, On 25 Apr 2009, at 10:41, Trevor Daniels wrote: Graham Percival wrote Friday, April 24, 2009 4:42 PM Hmm. I was initially thinking of 3.1.2, but that subsection (actually, the entire section) is really talking about *macroscopic* style. I mean, it refers back to the definition of a (compound) music expression. With that in mind, perhaps 2.3.1 is the best place: add 2-3 sentences and an articulation (or dynamic, or something) to the first paragraph+example. That said, this is really Trevor's area now. Let's see what he says. Thanks for the prompt! I think the best place is in 2.1.2 Simple notation, in the Durations (rhythms) section. This is where the entry of a duration is first mentioned, and it's immediately after introducing the ' and , marks. Perhaps immediately after the example there and before dotted notes are mentioned would be ideal. I'd be happy to receive a patch, Simon. i'll see about getting a patch to you on monday. my non-computer life (i.e. actually playing music) has seriously taken over my time lately. ;) regards, sb ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: music expression explanation
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 12:31:14PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Graham Percival wrote Saturday, April 25, 2009 10:13 AM
Eh?!?! You want to tell people to put articulation and dynamic
marks after the duration, before they've been told how to do
articulations and dynamics? Remember that the idea is to give a
general:
@var{pitch} @var{dur} @var{other}
No, you should. This thread has nothing to do
with articulation and dynamics. It is to to
with the relative order of octave marks and
durations.
Yes, the *initial* concern was over the relative order of octave
marks and durations. My *current* concern is that if it's
possible for people to get confused over
c4'
then surely they could also get confused over
c'\mf4
If so, there's two options:
1) give a general explanation of pitch-dur-other. In addition to
that order, explain that the order of other doesn't matter.
2) give an explanation of pitch-dur, then later on explain
pitch-dur-other (or maybe note-other, or something like that)
I thought that #1 would be best, but if you'd rather go with #2, I
have no objection.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
music expression explanation
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:10:37PM +0200, Simon Bailey wrote: Graham Percival wrote: If you have an idea for a general clarification that the syntax is pitch duration other, then I'm all for it. If it's a simple you need to put the ' before the duration, then I'd probably reject it as being insufficiently general. my first idea was something along the lines of your refusal. :) i do have some other ideas about how to explain the syntax, but they depend on where you want to put it in the docs. ... where would you put it in 3.1.? Hmm. I was initially thinking of 3.1.2, but that subsection (actually, the entire section) is really talking about *macroscopic* style. I mean, it refers back to the definition of a (compound) music expression. With that in mind, perhaps 2.3.1 is the best place: add 2-3 sentences and an articulation (or dynamic, or something) to the first paragraph+example. That said, this is really Trevor's area now. Let's see what he says. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: music expression explanation
Graham == Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes: Graham On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 04:10:37PM +0200, Simon Bailey wrote: Graham Percival wrote: If you have an idea for a general clarification that the syntax is pitch duration other, then I'm all for it. If it's a simple you need to put the ' before the duration, then I'd probably reject it as being insufficiently general. my first idea was something along the lines of your refusal. :) i do have some other ideas about how to explain the syntax, but they depend on where you want to put it in the docs. Graham ... where would you put it in 3.1.? Graham Hmm. I was initially thinking of 3.1.2, but that subsection Graham (actually, the entire section) is really talking about Graham *macroscopic* style. I mean, it refers back to the definition Graham of a (compound) music expression. Graham With that in mind, perhaps 2.3.1 is the best place: add 2-3 Graham sentences and an articulation (or dynamic, or something) to Graham the first paragraph+example. I'd really appreciate an appendix or something that gives Lily syntax as BNF, or as a syntax diagram. The syntax is very complex, and I've been caught out a number of times by things not being as I expected them to be from the NR --- not that the NR was wrong, but that the way elements are combined wasn't explicit. -- Dr Peter Chubb http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au peterc AT gelato.unsw.edu.au http://www.ertos.nicta.com.au ERTOS within National ICT Australia A university is a non-profit organisation only in the sense that it spends everything it gets ... Luca Turin. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: music expression explanation
On 4/24/09 4:22 PM, Peter Chubb lily.u...@chubb.wattle.id.au wrote: I'd really appreciate an appendix or something that gives Lily syntax as BNF, or as a syntax diagram. The syntax is very complex, and I've been caught out a number of times by things not being as I expected them to be from the NR --- not that the NR was wrong, but that the way elements are combined wasn't explicit. This has been asked for in the past. You'll find a thread on devel about it here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/7431 My best result is here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/7431/focus=7443 HTH, Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
