on 2013-05-21 at 09:26 PMA wrote: > I think a serious go at terminological precision > would note the distinction: pitch vs pitch-class.
indeed. that's why in my first mail i said that pitch involves a specific octave. but i thought the intention was not covering the whole theory of music, but rather discussing how the word "pitch" is used in the lilypond manual. unlike david, i think lilypond's own glossary is correct: === 1.235 pitch ES: altura, I: altezza, F: hauteur, D: Tonhöhe, NL: toonhoogte, DK: tonehøjde, S: tonhöjd, FI: sävelkorkeus. 1. The perceived quality of a sound that is primarily a function of its fundamental frequency. === the problem i see is that then in the manual the term is used too loosely, often in a way that is not quite correct. often it's used to mean what i would call simply "note name". anyway, i didn't bring this up, the discussion began with the use of the term in florian's presentation (by the way, i found the presentation very good). i jumped in just because terminological precision in music theory is one of my favorites pastimes... _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
