2009/5/11 Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca>:
> The Learning Manual does ***NOT*** require any prior knowledge. > If you find **any** lilypond material in the LM which does not > follow from previous material, this is a bug. > (we do not explain musical terminology, although we try to add > links to the music glossary for non-English or amateur musicians) > > Go back to LM 2 Tutorial. Oh, make sure you're looking at the > 2.12 or 2.13 documentation. Start reading. As soon as you find > a part that assumes prior knowledge, TELL US and we will fix it. > > > Now, the NR assumes that you've already read -- and UNDERSTOOD -- > the LM. If we didn't do that, the NR could easily be five times > as long as it is already. I have read through the LM a few times now. I've not memorised it, though. Ditto the notation reference. And the problem for a newbie -- well, this newbie, anyway -- is that I don't know whether I understand it until I try to use it. Then, when I hit a wall -- presumably because there's something I don't understand, because I'm not doing anything unusual -- I'm not sure where to go. It's one thing understanding the documentaion, it's entirely another applying it. So when I want to do something pretty common like set a chorus and multiple verses, and can't think of anything I've read that directly relates (I'm not proficient enough to connect the task to stuff that doesn't directly relate yet) then my thinking is "There must be an idiom for a common task like this". When I don't find the idiom in the snippets, surely it makes sense to ask, rather than plough on and come up with some possibly arcane and ugly solution to a problem that's already been solved? Then I get an answer that the problem can be solved using Voice contexts. That's helpful, a good steer, and would probably be enough for an intermediate user. But in my case it reveals that I don't know contexts well enough to apply that information directly. Clearly what I thought I understood hadn't sunk in. So I need to go back to the manuals and check what I'd -- read -- er -- somewhere ... -- er -- where was it? And /that's/ where I'm running into problems. "RTFLM section 3.3.1" would have been a good answer, where a bare "RTFM" was no sort of an answer at all. Although 3.3.1 pretty much begins with "we have already met the Voice context", with no hyperlink to where that was -- and that's the particular context I need to work with. You see, that's my problem. When I discover a gap in my knowledge or understanding, I find that I have to read /all/ of the documentation again, not just the bits that would fill the gap. Or, of course, ask... -- Tim Rowe _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
