> Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:19:47 +0200 > From: David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> > To: lilypond-user@gnu.org > Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support > Message-ID: <87pq9izsws....@fencepost.gnu.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Jonathan Wilkes <jancs...@yahoo.com> writes: > >> You should have a look at the website for Ardour if you haven't >> already.? Paul has a little bar that fills up toward a monthly total, >> and has an easy donation method that is highly visible.? You might >> also want to get in touch with him to get some details on how that >> process has worked for Ardour. >> >> If you end up implementing something like that on the Lilypond >> website,?I'll donate the first $100. > > If we put a full-page ad for proprietary software on the LilyPond > website and offer only crippled binaries for Windows/MacOSX unless you > donate first, I'll be in wild protest. > > Anyway, I am _one_ developer of several, and it would be inappropriate > to turn the LilyPond website into a personal payment collector for > myself. And Paul Davis runs a decidedly larger part (and also has > larger responsibilities) with the Ardour show than I do with LilyPond.
It doesn't have to be part of the Lilypond website. The link you already have could go to your own page that has the little bar I referred to and a button to make a donation through paypal. Of course that would require work and upkeep on your part. That's why I suggested contacting Paul-- maybe he can give you tips on what the easiest process is to set something like that up. (In fact I think there's a thread on the forum about just that topic.) -Jonathan > > -- > David Kastrup > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:05:02 +0200 > From: Janek Warcho? <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> > To: David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> > Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org > Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support > Message-ID: > <canyddpqmeusj79bqfpzroq2qen3kbbxqy6d4d8_gbyx4_qw...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:19 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> Anyway, I am _one_ developer of several, and it would be inappropriate >> to turn the LilyPond website into a personal payment collector for >> myself. ?And Paul Davis runs a decidedly larger part (and also has >> larger responsibilities) with the Ardour show than I do with LilyPond. > > David's right. However, i think it would be ok to add a "monthly > donations progress bar" on the sponsoring subpage > (http://www.lilypond.org/sponsoring.html), under David's name. > What do you think? To me this would be more like information than an ad. > > cheers, > Janek > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 22:20:40 +0100 > From: Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> > To: Janek Warcho? <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> > Cc: David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>, lilypond-user@gnu.org > Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support > Message-ID: <20120601212040.GA24998@gperciva-desktop> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:05:02PM +0200, Janek Warcho? wrote: >> David's right. However, i think it would be ok to add a "monthly >> donations progress bar" on the sponsoring subpage >> (http://www.lilypond.org/sponsoring.html), under David's name. >> What do you think? To me this would be more like information than an ad. > > If David wants to have a webpage for additional sponsorship info, > he can sign up for a free amazon web service account and get > apache running. Or stick it on lilynet.net. Actually, it seems a > shame that most of his funding details are buried in the lilypond > reports, so on a personal level I'd encourage him to have some > more "permanent" place for the latest funding info. And lilynet > is a good place for "experimental" / "unofficial" stuff. > > But can we stop arguing about commercializing lilypond.org? As a > result of a fair amount of arguments, we have a sponsorship page. > Do you really want to re-open that debate? after only a few > months? I'm pretty sick of that topic. > > - Graham > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:53:00 -0400 > From: Louis Guillaume <lo...@zabrico.com> > To: lilyp...@umpquanet.com > Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org > Subject: Re: Multiple tensions in Chord Mode > Message-ID: <4fc939bc.1020...@zabrico.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 5/28/12 6:38 PM, lilyp...@umpquanet.com wrote: >> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 09:48:29AM -0400, Louis Guillaume wrote: >>> >>> There is, however, one thing that I find impossible, that is, having > two >>> of the same tension in the chord symbol expression. There is a single >>> case I can think of and that is having both flat-nine and sharp-nine on >>> a dominant chord. e.g. >>> >>> In chord mode: >>> >>> c:7.9-.9+ >>> >>> In regular markup: >>> >>> <c e g bes des' dis'> >>> >>> Both of these produce a chord symbol AND chord without the flat-nine. > It >>> seems to only accommodate one 9th, and uses the last one encountered. >>> >>> Is there a way to do work around this? >>> >>> Louis >> >> Hi, Louis. >> >> If I may start with a bit of humble philosophy, when I see a flat >> 9 especially, I almost always conclude that the tonality will >> include a sharp 9 as well, simply because of the dissonance that >> would result from having the flat 9 competing against an >> unaltered 9. > > Not to mention the root, which is smunched up with those! > >> Not to say that it could never happen, it just >> strikes me as being rare. This doesn't necessarily work the >> other way around. A sharp 9 chord to me would normally imply a >> normal 9 also, unless inspection of the melody or harmony >> suggests a flat 9 would be more appropriate, in which case I'll >> grumble that the arranger should have written a flat 9. > > But maybe [s]he doesn't want you anywhere near the flat nine :). At > least for your part. We are talking chord symbols so there's expected > interpretation. I think when tensions are explicitly described on a > part, they are not subject to as much interpretation as if you were > playing off a lead-sheet. > >> In summary, IMHO: >> >> flat 9 = flat 9 and usually sharp 9 also >> sharp 9 = sharp 9 and usually natural 9 (or 2) > > I think that's accurate for the most part. Obviously there's a lot of > interpretation involved with this kind of thing. > >> If you want a flat 9 sharp 9 chord, consider using a flat 9 and >> leaving the sharp 9 implied. This is especially appropriate if >> the key signature implies a sharp 9 (C7 b9 in key of Db, Bb or Ab >> for example) > > I see the suggestion you're making, but this is where we diverge from > the philosophical and get practical! > >> IMHO, this situation also arises around flat fifths -- a flat >> fifth would almost always cause me to assume a sharp fifth as >> well. > > I'm not so sure about that. Certainly there's no natural 5th (it's > been > explicitly flattened), but the 6th could certainly be natural. Consider > the mode "c d e f ges a bes". > >> C7 b5 often implies a whole-tone scale (c d e ges aes bes >> c). However, I don't make this assumption about sharp 11 chords. >> I assume that sharp 11 chords are chosen to make the fourth tone >> of the mode be only a half step away from the perfect fifth, >> Lydian-style. > > Yes 7,#11 chords are almost certainly Lydian-flat-seven. > >> Anyway, having tried my best to talk you out of it, :) I can >> understand your desire to explicitly call out both alterations >> when necessary. I experimented quite a bit with this and learned >> a lot about the extent of the gap in my knowledge about lilypond >> chordmode and chord naming. >> >> I use jazz-chords.ily instead of pop-chords.ly, but .... >> >> Look in your pop-chords.ly file for a chord defined as >> <c e g bes cis' dis'> If you find it, comment out that > chord >> markup. If you don't find it, double check for alternate >> enharmonic spellings. If you still can't find it, perhaps it's >> not in pop-chords.ly. > > My pop-chords.ly has been heavily modified! I have the chord in there, > but without that voicing. > >> In my jazz-chords.ily I inserted this instead, with a slight >> spelling difference of des here instead of cis above: >> >> <c e g bes des' dis'>-\markup\jcRaise{ > "7(" \jcFlat "9" \jcSharp "9)" } >> >> For pop-chords.ly, the \jc* functions don't exist, so use this >> in pop-chords.ly: >> >> <c e g bes des' dis'>-\markup { "7" > \chordFlat "9" \chordSharp "9" } >> >> Now the strangest thing that I ran into was that I do not know >> how (and could not find a way) to describe those notes in >> \chordmode. As your message suggested, it appears that chordmode >> can handle only one alteration per scale degree, and it seems >> that a later alteration overrides any earlier alteration for a given >> scale tone. Further strangeness arose when I realized that >> spelling the same chord pitches in different order changes the >> way the chord markup is selected. >> >> However, the following snippet produces the correct markup, >> although the inability to use a \chordmode representation of >> those notes may prove to be inconvenient. I don't have the >> expertise to say whether the fact that identical chord pitches >> (shown as identically engraved chords) specified in a different >> sequence causes the chord naming functions to assign different >> markup to the chord. Could be seen as a feature by some, I >> suppose. >> >> I hope this helps. It was an interesting learning experience. > > It certainly does, Jim. Thanks for taking the time! > > I'll try to get this working this weekend and report back... > > Louis > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > > > End of lilypond-user Digest, Vol 115, Issue 5 > ********************************************* > _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
