2008/12/9 Hans Aberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 9 Dec 2008, at 03:13, Graham Breed wrote:
>> Lilypond code is already semantic markup for music. Your intermediate >> file would end up looking a lot like the original. > > If that would be the case, it would be not point, right? Right. > The format should be such that it can be sued by sound generating programs. Do you have a patch? >> When a musician's reading the notation, they're not looking above or >> before the key signature. They're looking at the notes. So the notes >> should look different to remind the musician that they should sound >> different. Otherwise it can get confusing as you switch between >> systems. > > That is not how it is done in current Western musical notation with respect > to tuning, which has been in use from around 1600. But you can always invent > something new. No Western musical notation I know of includes a specification of the tuning. > And key signatures make the notes sound different. Yes, and it's a classic cause of errors in performance, despite the key being reinforced by the music. > But it is obviously a matter of notational taste. No. Some systems really are easier to learn and use than others. > Then I am not sure what a two generator system is: is it not just the > generated Abelian group? It is. >> No, your system will not always work, as I've said, because diesis >> shifts introduce more equivalences. What example do you have where >> Lilypond's transpositions don't work? > > Then you will to give a reference what intervals are produced by a say a two > generator system. You know about M and m. Why do you need a reference? >>> One example is Just intonation. The major seconds between C-D and D-E. >>> But >>> here the tradition is to just forget about it, temper the difference out. >>> - >>> I do not know about any specifically Just intonation music. >> >> You what????????? Elsie Hamilton, Harry Partch, Lou Harrison, Terry >> Riley, La Monte Young, Kraig Grady, Toby Twining, Greg Schiemer, all >> passed you by? You don't know about the hexachords Willaert >> supposedly used to get just intonation performances? And yet you're >> happy to tell the Lilypond developers how they should implement their >> microtonal support! > > So how do they notate if a say piece in C major modulates to D major? They always, or even generally, write in major keys. Willaert, in particular, was writing before major keys were defined. But let's assume they'd notate it as just intonation. >> Yes. Hence Sagittal, HEWM, Extended Helmholtz-Ellis, and Johnston's >> notation. They won't work with your system. They will work for >> printing with the current Lilypond system and third-party fonts. They >> would work for MIDI if Lilypond allowed the tuning of the nominals to >> be specified ... and MIDI didn't suck quite so much. > > What do you mean here. In Sagittal > The Sagittal notation uses a conventional staff on which the natural notes > are in a > single series of fifths, with sharps and flats (and doubles thereof) > indicating tones that > are members of that same series, regardless of the particular tonal system > being > notated2. Therefore, if the notation is used for just intonation, these > notes will indicate a Pythagorean tuning. > > That is what my system does. No, your system, at least as you describe it, only has two generators. Sagittal allows for systems with any number of generators. >> Okay, I know how to transpose. What I'm asking is why it doesn't work >> for you in Lilypond. The way Lilypond does it looks fine to me. > > If it now can produce other than multiple of 12. Do you have evidence that it ever didn't work? >>> Right, But I think that is the limitation of the Western notation system. >>> And normally, I think one tempers it out, performing in a diatonic >>> system. >> >> That's what Lilypond does. You should be quite happy with Lilypond as it >> is. > > It did not work when I tried it - see the file I attached. I was quite > unhappy - I gave up. That file plainly isn't for a western notation system. >>>> And there are plenty of cases where the same pitch can be >>>> written different ways for a rank 2 tuning. Like a meantone notation >>>> with a new symbol for "diesis" shifts (1 step of 31, 50, 43, etc). >>>> You could write Db as the diesis above C# and you want it to stay like >>>> that. >>> >>> Those are E31 enharmonic equivalents. A true meantone might use M = >>> sqrt(5/4). >> >> They're equivalents in either E19, E31, E43, E50, and so on. The >> tuning doesn't matter. > > If know LilyPond can handle it. But ET's are just tuning intermediates for > the music, not describing the musical intent. That's right. >>> If you introduce enharmonic equivalents, or specific symbols for >>> tonesteps, >>> then it is tied to that tuning, and it cannot be retuned without lifting >>> it >>> to the diatonic structure. >> >> No. In this case the equivalents (call them enharmonic if you like) >> are not tied to the tuning. The current Lilypond system allows them >> to be distinguished but an abstract M m wouldn't. > > Abstract m M surely does. How can it possibly do so? Tell me! C to Db is M. C to the diesis above C# is M. How does abstract m and M distinguish M from M? >> So, Lilypond being a notation program, you aren't worried about the >> pitch fine-tuning? It already does what you want. > > I wasn't able to get E53. You said you weren't worried about pitch fine-tuning. >>>> I don't know that "the Turks" are of a single mind on this. Last I >>>> heard Ozan was looking at 41-equal because the 79 from whatever system >>>> was too complicated. >>> >>> It is a mess. So I think a system like Farhat's or the Arab would be >>> best, >>> and then indicate details as intonations or choice of tunings. >> >> Maybe the actual system they're notating is a mess when you try to fit >> it into your theories, because it wasn't developed according to those >> theories. > > Ozan Yarman and Nail Yavuzoğlu mentions the problems they perceive. And Ozan plainly does not say that somebody else's system would be better. > Otherwise, I know roughly how new translations can be done. And it is very > hard to translate E53 back to intervals letters, especially in the presence > of variable scale degrees. What does this have to do with Lilypond? >>>>> So that illustrates the problem of having notation tied to a specific >>>>> tuning. >>>> >>>> Does it? What notation could possibly have handled these makams >>>> without tying itself to the tuning? >>> >>> The Arab, Persian or the older system with letters, as here >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makam#Intervals >> >> No, those specify a division of the whole tone into 9 commas. They're >> tied to the tuning of a comma. > > My impression was that those letter existed before, and an E53 translation > was done afterwards, resulting in A's of different sizes. So they started out notating a tuning. > But anyway, such a letter system can be used for notating without tying to a > tuning like E53. But translation back is difficult - try that on those that > Scala lists. So the model doesn't describe the right tuning. The goal is to notate the correct tuning. >>>>> But when playing this, I think two M's of different sizes in succession >>>>> sounds weird. So it does not bother me, too much. :-) >>>> >>>> It's a problem that's bound to arise with a 53 note system. >>> >>> E53 does not have this problem. >> >> Of course it does! C-D is 9 steps, D-E is 8 steps, if C-E is to be a >> pure major third. > > E53, in Scala is the Pythagorean notation system. The one you indicate would > have to be given a different name. It doesn't matter how you notate it. The music will have two semitones of different sizes. Graham
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
