On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 01:03:05 +0100 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Especially, > > > it would be very useful to include in Section `5.7.8 Articulations´ > > > > with all > > > accents, pralls, mordents, etc. explanations how these marks have > been > > > used in > > > the past. For example, give briefly an etymologic overview on how > J.S. > > > Bach used > > > `turn´, `mordent´, `prall´. > > > > Absolutely not. We could include that in the music glossary, or as > > I agree with Graham. In fact, our long term plan is to have someone > integrate Lilypond into Wikipedia, and then move the entire glossary > to wikipedia as well. Lilypond is not the right medium for a treatise > on musicology (which is what the glossary is right now.) > > -- > > Han-Wen Nienhuys | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen Seems like it is not worth to hide the development point of view what was hidden in the back. Articulations are not well implemented in the midi side. I am still in favour of the development of the midi output. In that case, exactly the fields mentioned earlier in the discussion should be known (and probably also documented) -- what is the mathematically exact definition of glissando, etc. Maybe not all, but some of the articulations could have an effect in midi. The implementation may be the crudest, even zero-implementation is better than causing midi to go out of sync (bug: midi-grace.ly). In particular, the midi (or any other more advanced and freely available) output could show its value in the glossaries like Wikipedia, or collections like Mutopia Project. -- Terveisin Heikki Junes _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
