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
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
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
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
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
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
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 n
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
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 ha
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 wi
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 th
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
thin
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. Lily
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
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
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-u
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
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
>>>
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
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 i
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 i
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
generi
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 adequat
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
LilyPon
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 tryin
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 -
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 tryin
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
woodwin
ent. 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.nabbl
"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
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
> generi
- 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
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
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-directio
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 MUS
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-sha
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 mut
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"
Dear LilyPond users,
Marc Hohl has done a good job of improving tablature notation. We're just
ready to add it to LilyPond 2.13.4.
In the process of adding it, 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 i
39 matches
Mail list logo
