> On 20 Oct 2018, at 19:25, Adam Good <goodadamg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hans thank you for passing this along to the dev list, replies below...
Yes, it is important to le other to be able to follow, especially with such nice examples! > On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 4:40 AM Hans Åberg <haber...@telia.com> wrote: > >> Looks great! A possibility is to add a compile option using Helmholtz-Ellis >> arrowed accidentals, which would be better for non-Turkish to approach this >> music, and also avoid the confusion about the sharp signs in AEU notation. I >> made a example of that, Hicazkâr Peşrevi by Tanburî Cemil Bey. It depends on >> Smufl, though. >> >> Also, you might include your new makam file in the LilyPond distribution, >> along with regular.ly, Graham Breed I recall okayed that in the past, but >> somehow it as not happened so far. Maybe some of the developers here can >> tune in on that. >> > I'm currently in an email exchange with Graham Breed about some of this and > he also suggested including regular.ly along with though also said the > following: > > "Ideally, it would be a function added to the Scheme API so you don't even > need an include file." > > Is this doable? We would still need to set our temperament but before I get > too far ahead of myself, could that be: > > (was) > tuning = #53 > %\include "regular.ly" > > (proposal) > \eqtemptuning \53 > > (something like that) You might use something like: #(define (return-ET ET) ...) which defines the regular.ly newglyphs and then sets it in the \layout. It is also used to retune the standard scales using minor = #(scale-scale minor tuning) etc. I use in regularE53.ly: % 53-ET tonestep #(define-public COMMA 6/53) The 6 comes from LilyPonds use of whole tonesteps in an octave I think. Then % 53-ET alterations in terms of 12-ET whole tones. #(define-public FLAT (* -5 COMMA)) #(define-public SHARP (* 5 COMMA)) is just the differente between the major M and minor m seconds in E53, M = 9, m = 4, M - m = 5 which is what sharps ans flats later with. > Regarding the differences in our key signatures, right I hadn't thought of > that! I'll go ahead and change all 0/53 to simply 0. As David Kastrup it > doesn't make a difference to Scheme. I was thinking about 1/53. :-) Otherwise Scheme has exact and inexact numbers, and the exact numbers don't distinguish between integers and rationals as types. > Figuring out all of those key signatures was a mind bender for me. One should transpose to C major, and then compute the accidentals there. > Could you please show a pdf of your Cemil Bey Hicazkar Pesrev using HE > arrowed accidentals? And how to make that an option? I'll send it to you off the list, so as to lessen the traffic here. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
