On 3/23/09 8:19 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> James E. Bailey wrote March 23, 2009 12:43 PM
>>
>> Am 23.03.2009 um 13:24 schrieb Trevor Daniels:
>>
>> I'd like to say that I think removing polyphony here is a viable
>> solution, but I don't really believe that. Vocal music is heavily
>> reliant on this single staff polyphony. It's far too important
>> and often-used concept to really not introduce in the Learning
>> Manual.
>
> Personally I'd prefer to either remove it, or replace it with
> something like, "The concepts required to write polyphony
> are not introduced until section 3.2." And of course fix 3.2.
>
I vote for this as well. I think in the Learning Manual we should be firm
on the policy of not introducing unexplained syntax.
It should be sufficient to give a pointer that says "we'll cover this later.
Hang on till we get there". Then fix 3.2
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
