Issue 330120043: add some rarely used mensural clefs
Descriptionadd some rarely used mensural clefs
and an alias petrucci-g2 to petrucci-g
Patch Set 1 #
Total comments: 2
MessagesTotal messages: 8
g1 clef occurs in English manuscripts; f2 clef occurs in Ockeghem's Missa prolationum (Chigi codex)
Sign in to reply to this message.
I am updating the doc to include these new clefs (and add all ancient clefs to appendix A10 and I noticed some identical outputs for 'different' clef names. https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/diff/1/scm/parser-clef.scm File scm/parser-clef.scm (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/diff/1/scm/parser-clef.scm#newcode96 scm/parser-clef.scm:96: ("petrucci-g2" . ("clefs.petrucci.g" -2 0)) Is this correct? I know nothing about ancient notation, but it seems that "petrucci-g2" is identical "petrucci-g" (below) apart from using 'g2' instead of 'g1'. On a similar note I can see that petrucci-f and f4 also are identical (and produce the same output).
Sign in to reply to this message.
https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/diff/1/scm/parser-clef.scm File scm/parser-clef.scm (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/diff/1/scm/parser-clef.scm#newcode96 scm/parser-clef.scm:96: ("petrucci-g2" . ("clefs.petrucci.g" -2 0)) On 2017/09/10 13:02:25, pkx166h wrote: > Is this correct? > I know nothing about ancient notation, but it seems that "petrucci-g2" is > identical "petrucci-g" (below) apart from using 'g2' instead of 'g1'. > > On a similar note I can see that petrucci-f and f4 also are identical (and > produce the same output). yes, this is all correct and intended. we could have petrucci-french instead of the new g1, but we don't have petrucci-violin (petrucci-alto, etc.) either -- so long we went with petrucci-c1 etc. now as I added the g1 variant, for consistency reasons seemed worthwile to have g2 as alias of g, just like petrucci-f4 is an alias of petrucci-f since long (I don't know which one was first, f or f4). I thought about introducing a petrucci-c alias to one of the c-clefs, but since all five are used frequently (and together -- in different parts), any choice would be rather confusing than logical.
Sign in to reply to this message.
> I am updating the doc to include these new clefs (and add all ancient > clefs to appendix A10 I wanted to look at it, but you beat me -- thanks a lot! p
Sign in to reply to this message.
----- Original Message ----- From: <pkx166h@gmail.com> To: <benko.pal@gmail.com> Cc: <reply@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com>; <lilypond-devel@gnu.org> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 2:02 PM Subject: Re: add some rarely used mensural clefs (issue 330120043 bybenko.pal@gmail.com) >I am updating the doc to include these new clefs (and add all ancient > clefs to appendix A10 and I noticed some identical outputs for > 'different' clef names. > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/diff/1/scm/parser-clef.scm > File scm/parser-clef.scm (right): > > https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/diff/1/scm/parser-clef.scm#newcode96 > scm/parser-clef.scm:96: ("petrucci-g2" . ("clefs.petrucci.g" -2 0)) > Is this correct? > > I know nothing about ancient notation, but it seems that "petrucci-g2" > is identical "petrucci-g" (below) apart from using 'g2' instead of 'g1'. > > On a similar note I can see that petrucci-f and f4 also are identical > (and produce the same output). > > https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/ I just put a long comment on the issue tracker about this, but got "spambot protection engaged" and it appeared to junk my comments. So I'll try again. James - there's more work to be done here, I'm afraid. The mensural clef table that you've replaced with some examples - most of the examples aren't actually mensural clefs, they're Gregorian. In this part of the NR you should _only_ have clefs with "mensural in their name". Further down in the NR there is a section on Gregorian clefs and this should almost certainly be updated in the same way as you have done in the mensural clefs section. However, it's worth looking at the code that is used to create this section currently - you'll see that the example notes are different from the ones you've used in the appendix. This is because mensural notes would not be used in Gregorian music, so the appendix needs updating to use the same note types as the existing table in the Gregorian clef section of the NR. Hope this is useful and please shout if you want further information or help. -- Phil Holmes
Sign in to reply to this message.
On 2017/09/12 10:52:20, mail_philholmes.net wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <mailto:pkx166h@gmail.com> > To: <mailto:benko.pal@gmail.com> > Cc: <mailto:reply@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com>; <mailto:lilypond-devel@gnu.org> > Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 2:02 PM > Subject: Re: add some rarely used mensural clefs (issue 330120043 > mailto:bybenko.pal@gmail.com) > > > >I am updating the doc to include these new clefs (and add all ancient > > clefs to appendix A10 and I noticed some identical outputs for > > 'different' clef names. > > > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/diff/1/scm/parser-clef.scm > > File scm/parser-clef.scm (right): > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/diff/1/scm/parser-clef.scm#newcode96 > > scm/parser-clef.scm:96: ("petrucci-g2" . ("clefs.petrucci.g" -2 0)) > > Is this correct? > > > > I know nothing about ancient notation, but it seems that "petrucci-g2" > > is identical "petrucci-g" (below) apart from using 'g2' instead of 'g1'. > > > > On a similar note I can see that petrucci-f and f4 also are identical > > (and produce the same output). > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/ > > > I just put a long comment on the issue tracker about this, but got "spambot > protection engaged" and it appeared to junk my comments. So I'll try again. > > James - there's more work to be done here, I'm afraid. The mensural clef > table that you've replaced with some examples - most of the examples aren't > actually mensural clefs, they're Gregorian. In this part of the NR you > should _only_ have clefs with "mensural in their name". Further down in the > NR there is a section on Gregorian clefs and this should almost certainly be > updated in the same way as you have done in the mensural clefs section. > However, it's worth looking at the code that is used to create this section > currently - you'll see that the example notes are different from the ones > you've used in the appendix. This is because mensural notes would not be > used in Gregorian music, so the appendix needs updating to use the same note > types as the existing table in the Gregorian clef section of the NR. > > Hope this is useful and please shout if you want further information or > help. > > -- > Phil Holmes > Phil, whatever you can offer to help. I know nothing about Ancient music typesetting and was just basing my additions on what was already in the NR. I had asked a few years ago for some help with the Ancient music NR section as it really is looking rather odd and has not had any of the tidying up work that I did with Graham all those years ago because only a few people knew enough to know what was wrong or could be improved. I assumed (incorrectly as it turned out) that the #'mensural value was generic for all ancient music types and that it was the clef name/settings that made the output 'Gregorian' vs 'Mensural'. :) Although there are a lot of diffs, they are mainly just cut/paste edits so if you can give me some broad education on what values I need to use for a given set of keys sigs that should be enough than you go through every single edit line by line. I ordered the clefs as they appeared in the scm file rather than any alphabetical or notational style order. I figured it would be easier to correct someone's work than get a developer to do the edits themselves, so have at it, let me know what I need to change. To save you (and anyone else who may want to help) you can download what the table looks like when it is compiled from here: https://cloud.woelkli.com/s/dBGXat0NEGVoy5C This is just that Clef section in the appendix so it is a small PDF. Otherwise tell me what I need to fix or what is not correct etc. If you think removing notes would be better (in this appendix) then I can simply use 'spacers' (or if lilypond-book allows it, nothing at all). James
Sign in to reply to this message.
----- Original Message ----- From: <pkx166h@gmail.com> To: <benko.pal@gmail.com>; <mail@philholmes.net> Cc: <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>; <reply@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 3:39 PM Subject: Re: add some rarely used mensural clefs (issue 330120043 by benko.pal@gmail.com) > Phil, whatever you can offer to help. I know nothing about Ancient music > typesetting and was just basing my additions on what was already in the > NR. I had asked a few years ago for some help with the Ancient music NR > section as it really is looking rather odd and has not had any of the > tidying up work that I did with Graham all those years ago because only > a few people knew enough to know what was wrong or could be improved. > > I assumed (incorrectly as it turned out) that the #'mensural value was > generic for all ancient music types and that it was the clef > name/settings that made the output 'Gregorian' vs 'Mensural'. :) > Although there are a lot of diffs, they are mainly just cut/paste edits > so if you can give me some broad education on what values I need to use > for a given set of keys sigs that should be enough than you go through > every single edit line by line. > > I ordered the clefs as they appeared in the scm file rather than any > alphabetical or notational style order. I figured it would be easier to > correct someone's work than get a developer to do the edits themselves, > so have at it, let me know what I need to change. > > To save you (and anyone else who may want to help) you can download what > the table looks like when it is compiled from here: > > https://cloud.woelkli.com/s/dBGXat0NEGVoy5C > > This is just that Clef section in the appendix so it is a small PDF. > > Otherwise tell me what I need to fix or what is not correct etc. > > If you think removing notes would be better (in this appendix) then I > can simply use 'spacers' (or if lilypond-book allows it, nothing at > all). > > James I'll have a look at sending you some suggested changes tomorrow - I'm in all day so this will be something to work on. I think the notes add some value, since they show where middle C is with the relevant clef. -- Phil Holmes
Sign in to reply to this message.
All, >> Phil, whatever you can offer to help. I know nothing about Ancient music >> typesetting and was just basing my additions on what was already in the >> NR. I had asked a few years ago for some help with the Ancient music NR >> section oh, sorry, I missed it. I'm glad to help (I guess that would mainly be explaining things about ancient notation). >> as it really is looking rather odd and has not had any of the >> tidying up work that I did with Graham all those years ago because only >> a few people knew enough to know what was wrong or could be improved. >> >> I assumed (incorrectly as it turned out) that the #'mensural value was >> generic for all ancient music types and that it was the clef >> name/settings that made the output 'Gregorian' vs 'Mensural'. :) It's the notehead style: vaticana, medicaea, solesmes and hufnagel are for gregorian, mensural, neomensural and petrucci for mensural music. I'm not at all sure about kievan -- it seems mensural, but I may well be mistaken. >> Although there are a lot of diffs, they are mainly just cut/paste edits >> so if you can give me some broad education on what values I need to use >> for a given set of keys sigs that should be enough than you go through >> every single edit line by line. >> I ordered the clefs as they appeared in the scm file rather than any >> alphabetical or notational style order. I think that's a good order. >> I figured it would be easier to >> correct someone's work than get a developer to do the edits themselves, >> so have at it, let me know what I need to change. >> >> To save you (and anyone else who may want to help) you can download what >> the table looks like when it is compiled from here: >> >> https://cloud.woelkli.com/s/dBGXat0NEGVoy5C >> >> This is just that Clef section in the appendix so it is a small PDF. Grouping and ordering is fine. >> Otherwise tell me what I need to fix or what is not correct etc. >> >> If you think removing notes would be better (in this appendix) then I >> can simply use 'spacers' (or if lilypond-book allows it, nothing at >> all). >> >> James > > > I'll have a look at sending you some suggested changes tomorrow - I'm in all > day so this will be something to work on. > > I think the notes add some value, since they show where middle C is with the > relevant clef. Agreed. p
Sign in to reply to this message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
