On 10.09.2007 (05:22), Graham Percival wrote: > Rune Zedeler wrote: > >And in all cases, it is way too early. The user has not even learned what > >the "4" in "c4" means.
> Tutorial. If a user hasn't read the LM, they're on their own and I have > *no* sympathy for them. That's definitely the right approach. The *Documentation* should be in a reference form, arranged according to contents. This, IMHO, relates also to the question: bigger or smaller sections/subsections: it is rarely the case that one has a very specific question which can be answered by looking at a small subsection. My own usage is to open the pdf, search through the whole document for some word I expect to be relevant, and hopefully find the answer, either in some specific place, or from what I can piece together. I hardly ever use the ToC. For the same reason, I hardly ever use the one-page-per-subsection version of the doc. > ... my general concern with "it isn't musical content, only with how it is > displayed" is that most musicians don't make that distinction. Most > people _would_ say that ottava changes pitches. This is also the right way to go, I think. Whether or not something CHANGES the pitch, it still has to do with representing pitches, and I have no problem at all with a main heading "Pitches", which then, if necessary, can be subdivided into "Entering pitches" and "modifying the display" or something. > >I don't think that beams belong in this section - they belong together > >with phrasing slurs. > IMO, beaming is intricately bound up in meter. I could be convinced > otherwise, though. Anybody else have opinions about this? > >> o 8.7 Ancient notation > >Hmm, not really instrument specific. > "Specific-purpose notation" ? > "Notation for limited use" ? Why not a section of its own? > >> o 9.3 Vocal music > >If we consider the human voice an instrument, then this is very > >instrument specific. Move it to that section. > That's where it used to be, but singers complained. :) And rightly so... :-) If it should go anywhere else, it could perhaps be together with "Text", since that is (mainly) what distinguishes it from "normal" music. Eyolf -- David Brinkley: The daily astrological charts are precisely where, in my judgment, they belong, and that is on the comic page. George Will: I don't think astrology belongs even on the comic pages. The comics are making no truth claim. Brinkley: Where would you put it? Will: I wouldn't put it in the newspaper. I think it's transparent rubbish. It's a reflection of an idea that we expelled from Western thought in the sixteenth century, that we are in the center of a caring universe. We are not the center of the universe, and it doesn't care. The star's alignment at the time of our birth -- that is absolute rubbish. It is not funny to have it intruded among people who have nuclear weapons. Sam Donaldson: This isn't something new. Governor Ronald Reagan was sworn in just after midnight in his first term in Sacramento because the stars said it was a propitious time. Will: They [horoscopes] are utter crashing banalities. They could apply to anyone and anything. Brinkley: When is the exact moment [of birth]? I don't think the nurse is standing there with a stopwatch and a notepad. Donaldson: If we're making decisions based on the stars -- that's a cockamamie thing. People want to know. -- "This Week" with David Brinkley, ABC Television, Sunday, May 8, 1988, excerpts from a discussion on Astrology and Reagan _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
