2008/12/9 Hans Aberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 9 Dec 2008, at 05:00, Graham Breed wrote:
>> No, because Lilypond also preserves the number of scale steps. At
>> least, it should.
>
> I attach what I wrote for E36. There seems to be two systems, but they keep
> the ratio M/m = 2.
Where are the transpositions?
> It is much faster to compute fixed size integral types, regardless if you
> think it necessary.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
>>> The m M model I gave, I think makes the most of the Western notation
>>> system
>>> - it is what it actually notates. And it focuseS on musical function,
>>> writing notes, not pitches, the latter that can vary with interpretation.
>>
>> Exactly the same way Lilypond's model does.
>
> Only that is seems fixed to E12 or E24 when defining key signatures.
Now all of a sudden key signatures are the problem?
>> If you don't think MIDI's suitable, quit bugging the Lilypond
>> developers about their MIDI output. You could learn to parse the
>> Lilypond format. Or develop your own format and process it to make
>> Lilypond one of the intermediates. What makes you think some other
>> format (which you haven't begun to specify) would be magically easier
>> to work with?
>
> I already discussed those options with Manuel Op de Coul - too complicated.
Yes, it's complicated. And the solution is, to save you parsing
Lilypond files, Lilypond has to do exactly what you want, even if you
can't specify it.
>>>> Is there a way of using the
>>>> Lilypond parser and writing different output? If you have <snip>
> If retuned, E12 enharmonic equivalences no longer apply. So one must first
> decide which sharps and flats to use, which only works if notes like F# and
> Gb both appear.
That still doesn't answer my question.
>>> Finally, one can notate in E12, just minimizing the number of accidentals
>>> needed, so it is different going up and down.
>>
>> Yes. That would be chromatic transposition. I can't see a way to
>> specify it in Lilypond. So what does Lilypond actually do?
>
> Do not know.
Then why are you asking for changes on the developer list?
>>> First compute the scale degree p + q, and compute the octave and note
>>> name
>>> by dividing by 7: octave is the fraction, remainder the note name. Then
>>> subtract octave and note name from p m + q M; the result is of the form
>>> (-r)m + r M, where r if > 0 is the number of sharps, and if < 0, the
>>> number
>>> of flats is -r.
>>
>> Or it could do what it already does.
>
> So what does it do. Does it generalize?
It records a nominal and a rational alteration. It generalizes to
different alterations.
> Music may do enharmonic equivalence as a notational simplification, too, in
> which case m and M need not be known. There will be a small jump in the
> music, but performers will cope with that. Even dedicated E12 music may
> actually be performed in something else - somebody measured up that some
> Shoenberg piece was actually performed in Pythagorean tuning.
You brought up enharmonic equivalences. You said it's an example of M
and m needing to be known. And you were right. C# and Db are only
equivalent when M=2m.
>>>> That's why you have init files. Supply a different init file, or
>>>> alter the tuning specifications.
>>>
>>> The notation does normally tell what the tuning should be, so one would
>>> want
>>> to retune it, even if the typeset output is the same. Think of an archive
>>> with Medieval tunes - as it is now, they MIDI files will be in E12. But
>>> in
>>> those times one used E53. And if set in E53, they may not work with
>>> instruments in E12.
>>
>> Yes, so change the init file. Why are we going around in circles here?
>
> Perhaps you are stuck to the same idea, and repeating.
I'm stuck with that idea because it works.
>>> The problem is what the official version are. If the official version
>>> sets a
>>> specific tuning, then it is not possible to change that.
>>
>> Yes, it is possible to change it, by changing the init file.
>
> If you have the original .ly file.
How is it Lilypond's business if you don't?
>>> Sorry, typo: if the sound output is in E12, then it cannot be retuned
>>> without the underlying diatonic structure.
>>
>> So don't retune the sound output. Retune the Lilypond input.
>
> The all tuning capabilities lies on LilyPond.
If you're going to use Lilypond, Lilypond is pretty important.
> That is not how it is in Arab music. It uses symbols from E24, but there is
> no general agreement what tuning to use. The LilyPond model is flawed,
> though possible to tweak.
Then don't use E24 for Arabic music.
Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
