On 8 Feb 2013, at 18:31 , Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 02/08/2013 05:30 PM, Wim van Dommelen wrote:
Mmmh, but the correct use of it is vital. See e.g. Sparnaay pages
57 and 58. By
looking back to these pages I noticed he writes the usage of the
hole with a
cross in circle "one". Henri Bok does the same. I like the graphical
representation along the line we currently have because it is much
easier when
using it to play or practise something, but it is also arguable
that we are
going to forget the "h" completly and have a "oneX" option for the
central
column hole "one" producing a circle with a cross? Then we are also
in line with
the usage in the contemporary literature. Or better: let's do this in
"numerical" mode (see below).
Let's not overdo our obedience to sources. Most likely Spaarnay and
Bok choose that notation for their diagrams because it was easier
for them to achieve, not because it is some sort of "standard".
True.
You're probably better off preserving "h" for backwards
compatibility, and allowing an option for how it should be displayed
if you want to provide that.
Sparnaay also use two extra symbols (a small arrow up and a small
arrow down)
for indicating if this combination is too high or too low and some
comments,
that can easily be created outside of the woodwind stencils by
regular markups.
Indeed, that's something separate from fingering diagrams. "New
Directions for Clarinet" uses something similar for multiphonic
fingerings (but the arrows are close to the notes, rather than the
fingering diagrams).
And: both Sparnaay and Bok just use numbers for the keys, not
mnemonical
descriptions, we could think about replacing the (graphical . #f)
setting with a
choice:
\override #'(diagram-mode . graphical) %(the default)
\override #'(diagram-mode . keyname)
\override #'(diagram-mode . numerical)
We could, but I think that's something to revisit at a later time.
There's a fairly long-standing numerical notation for clarinet
fingerings -- IIRC it dates from Klosé's method for the (then) newly-
introduced Boehm clarinet -- but it's not really very satisfactory,
as it's difficult to understand without reference to an explanatory
diagram.
I agree it needs an explanatory diagram at hand and it also calls for
a possibility to have a numeric entry for specifying which key(s) to
use for which note. But through the years I've learned that coming
back with these kind of global things later will cause you headaches,
because then there will be even more legacy around. Having a top-level
entry into the graphs and procedures gives the possibility to fill it
in later, redesigning is a problem.
Regards,
Wim.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
