Doc: Improve documentation of \glissando.

Doc: Improve documentation of \glissando.

Based on work from Tiresia GIUNO <tiresiag@googlemail.com>.

[Graham Percival, 2012-09-20 18:08:15]

We normally do not include \override in most sections of the Notation manual. 
Instead, we ask users to submit LSR snippets showing the \override, then we
include those snippets in the docs.  This allows us to improve the documentation
with minimal effort on the part of developers.

If there's a special reason to include \override directly, then we can -- we do
this when discussing automatic beaming, for example, because there's no sense in
mentioning this without having overrides.  But I'm not certain if this applies
in this case?

[lemzwerg, 2012-09-20 20:34:25]

I agree with your argumentation.  However, I don't have time to fix the patch. 
Maybe a good soul from the documentation team can improve this.

[thomasmorley65, 2012-09-20 21:05:51]

On 2012/09/20 18:08:15, Graham Percival wrote:
> We normally do not include \override in most sections of the Notation manual. 
> Instead, we ask users to submit LSR snippets showing the \override, then we
> include those snippets in the docs.  This allows us to improve the
documentation
> with minimal effort on the part of developers.
> 
> If there's a special reason to include \override directly, then we can -- we
do
> this when discussing automatic beaming, for example, because there's no sense
in
> mentioning this without having overrides.  But I'm not certain if this applies
> in this case?

glissando-skip was introduced somewhere in 2.15.x, so no snippet using it can
make into LSR.
Thinking of an LSR-update, David recently suggested to wait a bit:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2012-09/msg00715.html

[Graham Percival, 2012-09-23 02:24:19]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 09:05:51PM +0000, thomasmorley65@googlemail.com wrote:
> On 2012/09/20 18:08:15, Graham Percival wrote:
> >We normally do not include \override in most sections of the Notation
> manual.
> >Instead, we ask users to submit LSR snippets showing the \override,
> then we
> >include those snippets in the docs.  This allows us to improve the
> documentation
> >with minimal effort on the part of developers.
> 
> glissando-skip was introduced somewhere in 2.15.x, so no snippet using
> it can make into LSR.

ok.  The Documentation/snippets/new/ directory was created for
exactly this situation.

- Graham

[Trevor Daniels, 2012-09-25 15:31:17]

I'm reworking these examples ready for insertion in
the NR, but I'd like to see responses to my comment
below first.

Trevor

http://codereview.appspot.com/6529043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/expressiv...
File Documentation/notation/expressive.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6529043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/expressiv...
Documentation/notation/expressive.itely:1074:
@lilypond[verbatim,quote,relative=2,line-width=4.0\cm]
In this example and the previous one the skipped notes
have durations, so the visible notes in a bar don't
add up to the measure length.  Is this the usual practice?

And a second point: it would be better to use \hideNotes
and then make the stem visible, otherwise ledger lines
and dots remain visible.

[benko.pal, 2012-09-25 15:47:07]

http://codereview.appspot.com/6529043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/expressiv...
File Documentation/notation/expressive.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6529043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/expressiv...
Documentation/notation/expressive.itely:1074:
@lilypond[verbatim,quote,relative=2,line-width=4.0\cm]
On 2012/09/25 15:31:17, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> In this example and the previous one the skipped notes
> have durations, so the visible notes in a bar don't
> add up to the measure length.  Is this the usual practice?

I'm just singing Xenakis' Nuits, and it's notated this way.

> And a second point: it would be better to use \hideNotes
> and then make the stem visible, otherwise ledger lines
> and dots remain visible.

ugh, I don't have the score at hand; I think I haven't seen ledger lines; I'm
absolutely unsure about dots.  will check tonight.

[benko.pal, 2012-09-25 16:04:34]

http://codereview.appspot.com/6529043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/expressiv...
File Documentation/notation/expressive.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6529043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/expressiv...
Documentation/notation/expressive.itely:1074:
@lilypond[verbatim,quote,relative=2,line-width=4.0\cm]
http://www.iannis-xenakis.org/partitions/Syrmos.jpg

[Trevor Daniels, 2012-09-25 21:07:06]

One more question (sorry, I'm not familiar with
this notation, and I'd like to be sure it's right.)

Trevor

http://codereview.appspot.com/6529043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/expressiv...
File Documentation/notation/expressive.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6529043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/expressiv...
Documentation/notation/expressive.itely:1059:
@lilypond[verbatim,quote,relative=2]
This example shows a beam extending from a stem to the
final note of the glissando.  Is this correct, or would
it be better to suppress the beam?

[benko.pal, 2012-09-25 21:29:29]

http://codereview.appspot.com/6529043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/expressiv...
File Documentation/notation/expressive.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6529043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/expressiv...
Documentation/notation/expressive.itely:1059:
@lilypond[verbatim,quote,relative=2]
On 2012/09/25 21:07:06, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> This example shows a beam extending from a stem to the
> final note of the glissando.  Is this correct, or would
> it be better to suppress the beam?

just like ordinary duration display: either a beam or a flag.  Bartók's String
Quartet no. 4. has examples for both.
I find your example fine.  is it mentioned that glissando is not standardised? 
e.g. Bartók wanted all glissandi start immediately, while others use the
headless stem notation, reserving full headed notes to mean fixed pitch through
the whole duration.

[benko.pal, 2012-09-26 12:31:40]

> This example shows a beam extending from a stem to the
> final note of the glissando.  Is this correct, or would
> it be better to suppress the beam?

I made some Bartók and Xenakis scans, see
https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B7AjGy5hUKtAeWtkdHdfN0l4bm8/edit
such beams can be seen in 0162.jpeg and 0164.jpeg
(the former has examples for avoiding such stems too, using flags).

[t.daniels_treda.co.uk, 2012-09-26 18:15:48]

Benkő Pál wrote Wednesday, September 26, 2012 1:31 PM


> I made some Bartók and Xenakis scans, see
> https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B7AjGy5hUKtAeWtkdHdfN0l4bm8/edit
> such beams can be seen in 0162.jpeg and 0164.jpeg
> (the former has examples for avoiding such stems too, using flags).

Many thanks, Pál, very helpful!  I now see the point of inserting these
markers in long glissandi, and the need for beams and flags.  I'll try to 
make realistic examples to show this.

Trevor

[Trevor Daniels, 2012-09-27 08:24:15]

A new patch has been uploaded to a new issue, 
number 6567059, as I do not own this one.

Werner: could you close this issue please.