On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 16:55 +0200, James E. Bailey wrote: > See, this is why I should subscribe to the development list… > While changing sustainDown/sustainUp to sustainOn/sustainOff makes > sense in the lilypond internals, it really doesn't make sense > musically. No one is going to confuse placing a sustain marking above > the staff. They don't go there, they never go there, that makes about > as much sense as putting guitar fretting or tablature below the staff, > they don't go there, it would be confusing to have the option. > sustainDown was one of the things that makes lilypond so normal. You > play a piano, you push down on the pedal, and it sustains. In computer > terms, something is switched on, but computer language doesn't have to > mimic what the computer does. Lilypond syntax is really logical, this > is a step in the illogical direction, if you ask me. It's up there > with changing figured bass so that it's input backwards from how > anyone conceptualises the musical term. > > I vote, as a pianist, for sustainDown/sustainUp. Who's with me?
I, too, am a pianist, but I have no problem with the change. Firstly, sustain markings _are_ sometimes put in different places (Beethoven always wrote pedal markings between the staves); secondly, on and off are not exactly difficult to understand. And thirdly, they're only predefined commands - use your own if you're really confused by them. -- Mark Knoop _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
