On 10 Dec 2008, at 07:40, Graham Breed wrote:
Not using key signatures will not solve that problem.I didn't say anything about not using them -- although, as it happens, they are trouble in microtonal music. What I said is that they lead to confusion. The main point is that learning contradictory meanings for existing symbols has a higher cognitive load than learning new symbols.
The advice is to check with the intended musicians and typeset what is good for them.
Rather which accidentals do you use?It depends on what system you use, doesn't it?
Relative Pythagorean E53 is easy. If one lets the letters C ... B stand for C Just major, then when changing to D Just major, then if one does not change the meaning of the letters, there will be a lot of funny accidentals. Then it is the question if musicians can work out such a thing - music is about playing notes, not frequencies.
Incidentally, JI notations won't usually work with the Lilypond model because it only allows a single glyph for each alteration. Pure sagittal can still go a long way though.
With the model I suggested, one can introduce a number of neutrals, and give them the same symbol. This might be useful when retuning. There is a principle of gravity
http://www.maqamworld.com/maqamat.html Scale degrees could be used to create such a retuning effect.
If transposition calls for say a comma below an m, and that m is computed not against E53, but E12, I think there might be an error. I leave it to you figure out. By contrast, if it is in E53, then I know it is right, and I donot have to do that exercise.Transpositions aren't "computed against" any equal temperament. If you transpose by a comma, then a comma will be added or subtracted from the previous alterations. The resulting alterations will be calculated according to the grid you specified. If you defined accidentals for them, those accidentals will be shown. Maybe there's an error -- if you find it, report it as a bug.
I did it for E53 - it did not work. I attach a file.
The difficult case is the most common one where a transposition moves from one scale degree to another. In this case it can be separated into a "microtonal transposition" -- specified according to the alterations -- and a "diatonic transposition" -- where Lilypond will use chromatic scale steps. A diatonic transposition will only lead to a change of alteration of M-m. (I hope this is obvious.) Lilypond will identify this interval as a "half step" and add or subtract 1/2 from the alterations. As long as you defined your alterations so that M-m=1/2 then all will be well.
So then one must be able to have different values here.
Since the name diesis has many uses, you will have to elaborate.Since even the name "enharmonic diesis" has more then one use even in a meantone context, I did elaborate. I got the definition wrong though, because I said it was 1 step from 50. It should be 2 steps so maybe that's what confused you. It's 1 step from 19, 31, 43, 55, and so on adding 12 each time. In M and m it would be 2m-M I think.
Perhaps you mean the between a sharp and a flattened M, like between F# and Gb, which may be positive or negative. Since I do not impose any such relations, those are not confused.
I'm not writing it. If I did I'd probably use Pythagorean notation with a comma accidental.So that would then work with the method I gave.I didn't say it wouldn't. But, in fact, it wouldn't. Your Pythagorean notation would make the comma below E indistinguishable from Fb.
Why would that be: m and M generate the Pythagorean system, and it already contains a comma if you so like, but if the comma has different musical function, introduce a netral second to describe it.
maqam53.ly
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
