Issue 47850043: Add Changes entries for bare rhythms and \beamExceptions (Closed)
|
Created:
10 years, 4 months ago by dak Modified:
8 years, 9 months ago CC:
lilypond-devel_gnu.org Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionAdd Changes entries for bare rhythms and \beamExceptions
Since I would like to get this into 2.19.0, I'll commit once Patchy
agrees. We can still polish the wording afterwards; it's more
important to get it in at all.
Patch Set 1 #Patch Set 2 : An editing command had some unexpected side effect #Patch Set 3 : Formatting, _another_ bug fix. #
Total comments: 2
MessagesTotal messages: 8
An editing command had some unexpected side effect
Sign in to reply to this message.
Formatting, _another_ bug fix.
Sign in to reply to this message.
Hi David Suggestion for wording the "bare durations" change. I like the way this lets you code tied notes with varying durations, too! Cheers and Happy New Year, Ian https://codereview.appspot.com/47850043/diff/40001/Documentation/changes.tely File Documentation/changes.tely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/47850043/diff/40001/Documentation/changes.tely... Documentation/changes.tely:69: You can now code free-standing duration items in a music sequence to specify a sequence of several notes at the same pitch with varying rhythms. Any such free-standing durations take their pitch from the previous note or chord specified with a pitch value. This may be useful for writing rhythms to percussion parts to make the input more readable, or for specifying rhythms for music or scheme functions. Here are two examples showing how this feature makes for much more readable input:
Sign in to reply to this message.
https://codereview.appspot.com/47850043/diff/40001/Documentation/changes.tely File Documentation/changes.tely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/47850043/diff/40001/Documentation/changes.tely... Documentation/changes.tely:69: Well, the original is already in (since it really should go into 2.19.0), so now we can polish the wording. On 2014/01/05 02:40:56, Ian Hulin (gmail) wrote: > You can now code free-standing duration items in a music sequence to specify a Too cumbersome. "code" rather than "write" seems strange, and "duration items" seems also awkward. Is "free-standing" a reasonably idiomatic term? "Isolated" is not all that good but was the best I came up with. The usage in Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely is Durations occuring on their own within a music sequence will take their pitches from the preceding note or chord. Maybe one should not try finding a term at all? One might write something like Durations can now be written in music expressions without an immediately preceding pitch or chord. In the score, the missing pitches will be taken from the last preceding note or chord. Hm, not much better. > This may be useful for writing rhythms to percussion parts to make the input > more readable, or for specifying rhythms for music or scheme functions. > Here are two examples showing how this feature makes for much more readable > input: That's fine. "much more readable" may be a bit of an exaggeration. But that's not the NR so we might get away with it.
Sign in to reply to this message.
dak@gnu.org wrote Monday, January 06, 2014 3:27 PM > Maybe one should not try finding a term at all? One might write > something like > > Durations can now be written in music expressions without an > immediately preceding pitch or chord. In the score, the missing > pitches will be taken from the last preceding note or chord. Yes, and even simpler: Durations can be written in music expressions without an immediately preceding pitch or chord --- the missing pitches will be taken from the last preceding note or chord. Trevor
Sign in to reply to this message.
On 2014/01/06 16:24:24, t.daniels_treda.co.uk wrote: > mailto:dak@gnu.org wrote Monday, January 06, 2014 3:27 PM > > > Maybe one should not try finding a term at all? One might write > > something like > > > > Durations can now be written in music expressions without an > > immediately preceding pitch or chord. In the score, the missing > > pitches will be taken from the last preceding note or chord. > > Yes, and even simpler: > > Durations can be written in music expressions without an > immediately preceding pitch or chord --- the missing > pitches will be taken from the last preceding note or chord. Ah, but they won't. It's only during scorification that the missing pitches get filled in. Now of course there is little point in trying to pick a wording that is technically more accurate without the reader having a chance to guess that until he figures it out on his own. Feels a little bit like how "congressional oversight" (well, the equivocating rather than the blunt perjury). Any idea how to write this appropriate for this level without omitting the information that the note events will stay pitchless until scorification time?
Sign in to reply to this message.
James <pkx166h@gmail.com> writes: > On 06/01/14 18:12, dak@gnu.org wrote: >> On 2014/01/06 16:24:24, t.daniels_treda.co.uk wrote: >>> mailto:dak@gnu.org wrote Monday, January 06, 2014 3:27 PM >> >>> > Maybe one should not try finding a term at all? One might write >>> > something like >>> > >>> > Durations can now be written in music expressions without an >>> > immediately preceding pitch or chord. In the score, the missing >>> > pitches will be taken from the last preceding note or chord. >> >>> Yes, and even simpler: >> >>> Durations can be written in music expressions without an >>> immediately preceding pitch or chord --- the missing >>> pitches will be taken from the last preceding note or chord. >> >> Ah, but they won't. It's only during scorification that the missing >> pitches get filled in. Now of course there is little point in trying to >> pick a wording that is technically more accurate without the reader >> having a chance to guess that until he figures it out on his own. >> >> Feels a little bit like how "congressional oversight" (well, the >> equivocating rather than the blunt perjury). Any idea how to write this >> appropriate for this level without omitting the information that the >> note events will stay pitchless until scorification time? > Can't we just show an @lilypond example? I'm a bit at a loss here: \displayLilyMusic demonstrates that no pitches have been filled in (like it would with q chord repeats) but that's not much of an example. And for anything occuring in a score, the pitches will be there. One could do something like \relative { c'4 c' c' } as opposed to \relative { c'4 4 4 } as this makes clear that at least at the time \relative is executed the pitches are not yet available for getting mangled. https://codereview.appspot.com/47850043/ -- David Kastrup
Sign in to reply to this message.
On 2014/01/06 18:31:46, dak wrote: > >> Ah, but they won't. It's only during scorification that the missing > >> pitches get filled in. Now of course there is little point in trying to > >> pick a wording that is technically more accurate without the reader > >> having a chance to guess that until he figures it out on his own. Very few if any readers would appreciate the subtle meaning behind "In the score". I didn't. So in practical terms nothing is lost by leaving it out. All it might do is confuse: "What does that mean?". Really this sort of detail should go in one of the manuals rather than in Changes. At present the NR says very simply, "Durations occuring on their own within a music sequence will take their pitches from the preceding note or chord." This is where a more accurate description should be placed, if you think one is needed. Trevor
Sign in to reply to this message.
|
