Hi musicus, > Of course a good musician needs to focus on every detail, but only the "bad" > ones neglect the bigger context. The key is to focus on the "right" thing, > which is in many cases NOT every single note of an chromatic scale, IMO.
I agree, 100%. > It was never my intention to question our well proven notation system, but > only to improve some awkward side effects of it. In that spirit, I have a question… In the jazz and musical theatre (MT) worlds — and, I would offer, most contemporary classical music — nobody spends the time anymore to write out glissandi when the exact notes are inconsequential. In the most obvious example, consider harp music: usually, the “pitch set” is indicated (either through pedalling, or the first few notes of the gliss/gesture, or both), and then graphic lines are used to indicate duration and direction of the glissandi [or whatever the gesture is]; this is exactly the same in most MT scores, where the pianist is expected to gliss. And this is all done extremely effectively in the accepted/shared/codified Western notation system, without any changes to the fundamental way that notes themselves appear on the staff. Why is that concept not sufficient for your needs? Why, for instance, can you not just come up with a graphic notation that DOESN’T change the note placement or shape (cf. the standard gliss), but gains you the benefits you are seeking? Best, Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
