luis jure wrote:
on 2013-05-21 at 13:18 David Kastrup wrote:
It would seem that you associate the term "pitch" with physical
frequency.
no, it's not me, it's the standard meaning of the term as used in music
theory, psychoacoustics, musical acoustics, music cognition, and all the
disciplines i know that deal with music and/or the perception of sound. it
also seems to be the standard meaning in dictionaries and encyclopedias.
BTW, its cleat that pitch is NOT physical frequency, but a perceptual
sensation (dependent mainly on the fundamental frequency of an acoustic
signal).
That is not how LilyPond uses the term
fair enough, although honestly i don't see how it could be convenient to
use an established term with a definite meaning to denote something else.
imagine that, like florian, you're introducing lilypond to people with
solid background in music theory (composers, musicologists, whatever). i
can imagine that using the term "pitch" to mean something other than pitch
is going to cause confusion.
A "note" is more than a pitch: it has duration, articulations, etc.
fair enough, the term "note" has a less definite meaning, and can denote
different things depending on the use. i'd rather not comment on the
possible meanings of the term in the english language, and how it's
similar or different form the german "Note" or "Ton" or the spanish "nota".
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
I think a serious go at terminological precision
would note the distinction: pitch vs pitch-class.
PA
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
