Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de> writes: > Ok, now I understand - thanks for pointing this out. >>> And it is not about swing alone, see: >>> >>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=687 >> You are confusing the quality of one implementation with the qualities >> of the approach as such. > Probably.
I have not reread that link but remember the discussion. I seem to remember that one example mentioned in there is Viennese waltz. And in contrast to swing, Viennese waltz AFAIR is indeed basically a per-measure time warp resulting in a slight accelerando at the end of each measure. It does not disturb the relations to n-tuples to the beats, and you would not want to see it affecting the spacing. So that would indeed be susceptible to do with MIDI time warps exclusively, but as long as LilyPond does not in other means try to capture expressivity, this seems somewhat pointless. With swing, however, there _is_ an exact timing implied by the notation, and one that _does_ affect note spacing, so it is more important that LilyPond offers a way to get this right to a degree where it is proof-audible. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
