Re: Music Glossary - 1.64 Concert Pitch (2.12.2)

[Hans Aberg]

On 3 Apr 2009, at 19:20, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

If anybody can improve on those entries I'm all ears, otherwise can  
somebody update the glossary? For the most part, I've just been far  
more pedantic, but the existing bit about the trombone is, I'm  
sorry, just plain wrong!


I think a problem with those sections is that they mix several  
different concepts in a jumble.


Concert pitch is simply what the non-transposing instruments play,  
when presented a notated note.


Then "pitch" is the perceived highness or lowness of a note. A primary  
function is frequency, but it depends also on other things like  
dynamics, scale stretch and non-linearity of the human ear.


Then one can choose a tuning frequency, or "absolute pitch". Usually  
this is middle A, and often it is set to 440 Hz.


The above does not say anything about the temperament. Orchestras can  
adjust on the fly between meantone and Pythagorean tuning, or  
something in between, sharpening some intervals. Hindemith,  
"Elementary training" mentions E12 (12-ET) as only for use on special  
instruments like pianos and as notational simplification (when  
modulating key signatures with more than six or seven flats or  
sharps), very clearly indicating that the "circle of fifths" does not  
close on other instruments, but is a spiral. Pianos are tuned with  
scale stretch in order to compensate for inharmonicity. (I measured  
some variable pitch instruments attempting to play the major scale as  
closely as possible, and there was a variation of more that 10 cents  
in frequency.)


The transposing instruments play a pitch other than notated. The  
transposition is (generally) such that the musician uses the fingering  
as on a an instrument in C. So an alto flute in G plays a note one  
fourth below the written - middle C is played as G below. If one wants  
the alto to play the middle C, it must be notated one fourth above:  
middle F.


It is traditional which instrument in an instrument group that is  
designated as being in C. For example, the first note blown over on a  
flute in C is D. The traditional C flute has a joint extension that  
allows it to play down to middle C, though some modern flutes have a  
Bb joint, admitting to play one semitone lower.


[Hope all this was right. :-)]

  Hans




___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Reverting Beat Grouping Commands

[Trevor Daniels]

Carl

As an alternative to having a complex time-signature-dependent 
revert command why don't we introduce a context property to control 
whether the beam-ending rules should be applied or not?  This seems 
particularly easy to do, and is conceptually simple.  We would need 
to add a couple of lines to default-auto-beam-check in auto-beam.scm 
like this:


change

(settings (get 'autoBeamSettings '()))

to

(settings (if (get 'useBeamEndingRules #t)
 (get 'autoBeamSettings '())
 '()))

What do you think?  It seems to work fine.  Shall I make this my 
first frog task?


Trevor


- Original Message - 
From: "Carl D. Sorensen" 
To: "Trevor Daniels" ; "lilypond-devel" 


Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 1:14 AM
Subject: Reverting Beat Grouping Commands


Trevor,

Here is the code that I remembered had been provided for reverting 
auto-beam

settings.

Unfortunately, I remembered it coming from Nicolas instead of Neil. 
I
guess I got my Scheme-guru-beginning-with-N names confused.  Sorry, 
Neil!


HTH,

Carl


-- Forwarded Message
From: Neil Puttock 
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:06:42 -0600
To: Trevor Daniels 
Cc: "Carl D. Sorensen" , Lilypond-User List

Conversation: Beat grouping and reverting
Subject: Re: Beat grouping and reverting

Hi Trevor,

2008/10/25 Trevor Daniels :

Carl

But how do you revert entries like this:

((end * * 6 8) . #f) ;; switch-off at-any-beat feature


The simplest way would be to add a function to switch this back on:

#(define (revert-property-setting context property setting)
 "Like the C++ code that executes \revert, but without type
checking. "
 (define (revert-member alist entry new)
   "Return ALIST, with ENTRY removed.  ALIST is not modified, 
instead

a fresh copy of the list-head is made."
   (cond
((null? alist) new)
((equal? (car alist) entry) (revert-member (cdr alist) entry 
new))
(else (revert-member (cdr alist) entry (cons (car alist) 
new)

 (ly:context-set-property!
  context property
  (revert-member (ly:context-property context property) setting 
'(


#(define (allow-at-any-beat num den)
 (ly:export
  (context-spec-music
   (make-apply-context (lambda (c)
 (revert-property-setting
  c 'autoBeamSettings
  (cons `(end * * ,num ,den) #f
   'Voice)))

\relative c'' {
 #(set-time-signature 6 8 '())
 #(allow-at-any-beat 6 8)
 #(revert-auto-beam-setting '(end * * 6 8) 3 8)
 #(revert-auto-beam-setting '(end 1 32 6 8) 1 8)
 #(revert-auto-beam-setting '(end 1 32 6 8) 1 4)
 #(revert-auto-beam-setting '(end 1 32 6 8) 1 2)
 #(revert-auto-beam-setting '(end 1 32 6 8) 5 8)
 a8 a a a a a
 \set beatGrouping = #'(2 2 2)
 a8 a a a a a
}

A better solution might be to rewrite revert-auto-beam-setting so 
that

the args for beat begin/end are moved to the optional argument list
(which is currently only used for the context).

Regards,
Neil

-- End of Forwarded Message




___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Music Glossary - 1.64 Concert Pitch (2.12.2)

[Hans Aberg]

On 3 Apr 2009, at 19:20, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:


1.311 transposing instrument

..., the speed of sound in air is 343m/s,...


This is only true at about 19.6℃ (degrees Celsius):

The temperature of the air in the human blown instrument is higher,  
clearly. If I quickly measure my flute with an IR-thermometer (and it  
can be hard to know exactly what it measures), I got 30-32℃ at the  
head-joint alone, and 24-26℃ at the lower end. The actual air  
temperature may be higher. A trick one can do on a flute to raise the  
air temperature before playing, is to close all finger holes and blow  
directly into the mouth-piece hole.


The speed of sound in gases is (roughly) proportional to the square- 
root of the absolute temperature. Figures used the speed of sound v_0  
in air at 0℃ varies a bit in the range from 331.2 to 331.8 m/s  
perhaps. This gives the formula at absolute temperature T

  v = sqrt(T/273.15)*v_0 m/s
For example, if the temperature of the air is 28℃, then T = 273.15+28  
= 301.15 K (Kelvin). If v_0 is set to 331.5 m/s, then at 28℃, v =  
sqrt(301.15/273.15)*331.5 = 348.1 m/s. Translated into pitches, this  
is a change of 25.4 cents relative the speed 343 m*/s given above, or  
a difference in tuning of about 6-7 Hz, or enough to hear the  
instrument go out of tune. (But the temperature of the air varies  
throughout the instrument - I just took a value to show how to  
calculate v.)


  Hans




___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Reverting Beat Grouping Commands

[Carl D. Sorensen]

On 4/5/09 5:05 AM, "Trevor Daniels"  wrote:

> Carl
> 
> As an alternative to having a complex time-signature-dependent
> revert command why don't we introduce a context property to control
> whether the beam-ending rules should be applied or not?  This seems
> particularly easy to do, and is conceptually simple.

This would be easy to do, and might meet some of the needs.  But if people
want to use complex beam-ending rules rather than beat-grouping, they'll
still need to revert the predefined rules, won't they?  So wouldn't the
revert function still be useful?

It seems like it shouldn't be so hard to write a function
(revert-all-auto-beam-settings numerator denominator) that would
get all the settings with that numerator and denominator, then one by one
revert them.

Would you like me to (a) write this, or (b) give a bit more fleshed-out
outline of it?

> We would need
> to add a couple of lines to default-auto-beam-check in auto-beam.scm
> like this:
> 
> change
> 
> (settings (get 'autoBeamSettings '()))
> 
> to
> 
> (settings (if (get 'useBeamEndingRules #t)
>   (get 'autoBeamSettings '())
>   '()))
> 
> What do you think?  It seems to work fine.  Shall I make this my
> first frog task?
> 

I don't see any problems in the function of the proposed code.  However, it
seems to introduce another property, which I think is unnecessary.  And I
think we want to avoid adding properties, unless it's necessary.

Thanks,

Carl




___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Reverting Beat Grouping Commands

[Trevor Daniels]

Carl D. Sorensen wrote Sunday, April 05, 2009 3:16 PM


On 4/5/09 5:05 AM, "Trevor Daniels"  wrote:


Carl

As an alternative to having a complex time-signature-dependent
revert command why don't we introduce a context property to 
control
whether the beam-ending rules should be applied or not?  This 
seems

particularly easy to do, and is conceptually simple.


This would be easy to do, and might meet some of the needs.  But 
if people
want to use complex beam-ending rules rather than beat-grouping, 
they'll
still need to revert the predefined rules, won't they?  So 
wouldn't the

revert function still be useful?


My objective is to make it as simple as possible for people
to use beat-grouping.  At the moment they have to understand
how to turn off the beam-ending rules with revert first, and
they would still need to understand this even with a revert-all
function.  What I'm proposing is a simpler way for those who
don't what to get into the beam-ending rules - we simply say
"to use beat grouping, \set useBeamEndingRules to ##f".

Those writing their own beam-ending rules -have- to understand
them, so they should have no difficulty using a revert.


It seems like it shouldn't be so hard to write a function
(revert-all-auto-beam-settings numerator denominator) that would
get all the settings with that numerator and denominator, then one 
by one

revert them.


No it's not hard to write, but the documention would be
much simpler if we can clearly separate the two methods.

Would you like me to (a) write this, or (b) give a bit more 
fleshed-out

outline of it?


No thanks, I'm pretty sure I can write it.  But I wonder
if this is really the best approach.


We would need
to add a couple of lines to default-auto-beam-check in 
auto-beam.scm

like this:

change

(settings (get 'autoBeamSettings '()))

to

(settings (if (get 'useBeamEndingRules #t)
  (get 'autoBeamSettings '())
  '()))

What do you think?  It seems to work fine.  Shall I make this my
first frog task?


I don't see any problems in the function of the proposed code. 
However, it
seems to introduce another property, which I think is unnecessary. 
And I

think we want to avoid adding properties, unless it's necessary.


The consideration isn't a count of the number of properties
but whether Lily becomes easier to use or not.  I think a \set
command -is- easier to use, and the documentation would certainly
be easier to write and understand if we can relegate all
consideration of the beam-ending rules to just those who
actually need their complexity.

That said, I'm happy to do either (or both) depending on your
and others' views.

Trevor



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Off topic, Was: Music Glossary - 1.64 Concert Pitch (2.12.2)

[Mats Bengtsson]

Hans Aberg wrote:


The speed of sound in gases is (roughly) proportional to the 
square-root of the absolute temperature. Figures used the speed of 
sound v_0 in air at 0℃ varies a bit in the range from 331.2 to 331.8 
m/s perhaps. This gives the formula at absolute temperature T

  v = sqrt(T/273.15)*v_0 m/s
For example, if the temperature of the air is 28℃, then T = 273.15+28 
= 301.15 K (Kelvin). If v_0 is set to 331.5 m/s, then at 28℃, v = 
sqrt(301.15/273.15)*331.5 = 348.1 m/s. Translated into pitches, this 
is a change of 25.4 cents relative the speed 343 m*/s given above, or 
a difference in tuning of about 6-7 Hz, or enough to hear the 
instrument go out of tune. (But the temperature of the air varies 
throughout the instrument - I just took a value to show how to 
calculate v.)
A flute playing friend of mine once demonstrated what happens if you 
drink a bear just before you play and all of  a sudden a burp increases 
the proportion of carbon dioxide in the breathing air significantly, 
resulting in a much lower pitch.


  /Mats


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Reverting Beat Grouping Commands

[Carl D. Sorensen]

On 4/5/09 9:02 AM, "Trevor Daniels"  wrote:

> 
> 
> Carl D. Sorensen wrote Sunday, April 05, 2009 3:16 PM
> 
>> On 4/5/09 5:05 AM, "Trevor Daniels"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Carl
>>> 
>>> As an alternative to having a complex time-signature-dependent
>>> revert command why don't we introduce a context property to
>>> control
>>> whether the beam-ending rules should be applied or not?  This
>>> seems
>>> particularly easy to do, and is conceptually simple.
>> 
>> This would be easy to do, and might meet some of the needs.  But
>> if people
>> want to use complex beam-ending rules rather than beat-grouping,
>> they'll
>> still need to revert the predefined rules, won't they?  So
>> wouldn't the
>> revert function still be useful?
> 
> My objective is to make it as simple as possible for people
> to use beat-grouping.  At the moment they have to understand
> how to turn off the beam-ending rules with revert first, and
> they would still need to understand this even with a revert-all
> function.  What I'm proposing is a simpler way for those who
> don't what to get into the beam-ending rules - we simply say
> "to use beat grouping, \set useBeamEndingRules to ##f".

beatGrouping and auto-beam-ending-rules are not currently mutually
exclusive.  Do we want to make them mutually exclusive?  I honestly don't
know the answer to this question.  I added beatGrouping to the auto-beam
code because the lack of it was a known issue.  I don't know what the
"right" thing to do is.

Currently, in scm/auto-beam.scm, the default auto-beam-settings make use
of beatLength, beatGrouping, and explicit settings.  If they are cleanly
separated, I think we'll need to adjust that significantly.

One advantage to your proposal is that we wouldn't have to eliminate the
default auto-beam settings.  The revert-all-auto-beam-settings would
eliminate the rules from the list, and there's no way to get them back.

Is it possible that one would want to use beatGrouping for one time
signature but use auto-beam-ending rules for another time signature?  Would
an entry ((end * * num den) . 'ignore)  be a useful way to ignore all
auto-beam ending rules that would be revertable?
 
> 
> Those writing their own beam-ending rules -have- to understand
> them, so they should have no difficulty using a revert.
> 
>> It seems like it shouldn't be so hard to write a function
>> (revert-all-auto-beam-settings numerator denominator) that would
>> get all the settings with that numerator and denominator, then one
>> by one
>> revert them.
> 
> No it's not hard to write, but the documention would be
> much simpler if we can clearly separate the two methods.

This is probably true.  But the code doesn't currently clearly separate the
two methods.  If we want to have the two methods be mutually exclusive, the
code should be changed.  It would actually greatly simplify the code to have
beatGrouping ignore the auto-beam settings.

What if we scrapped the current auto-beam code completely, and replaced it
with a structured beatGrouping, something like

((denominator (ending-beatGroupings) (subdivide-beatGroupings))
 (denominator2 (ending-beatGroupings) (subdivide-beatGroupings)))

We might then have something like the following in 6/8 time:

((8 (3 3) ())
 (16 (6 6) (6 6))
 (32 (4 4 4 4 4 4) (8 8 8)))

Then, if subdivideBeams  were set to #t, we could reduce the beam count for
a given level of beaming at the appropriate point.

I don't know if this is a better solution, but it might improve what
currently seems to me to be a very awkward system.

One weakness in this approach is that it provides no way to have an
auto-beam-ending rule for 3/32 beams (but I don't know of any 3/32 beams, so
I don't think that's a real limitation).

David Brobroff's request

could then be met by

((8 (4) ())
 (16 (4 4) ())
 (32 (8 8) (4 4 4 4)))

This would have the downside of requiring a complete redefinition every time
you changed the time signature, but it would get rid of the current problem
where you have to revert rules before you can add new ones.  It would also
put all automatic definitions of autobeam rules in one location in the
source tree, rather than having them spread across two files.

I don't know if this proposal has merit or not, but it seems like we really
ought to get to *some* combination of syntax and functionality that we think
really works.


> 
>> 
>> I don't see any problems in the function of the proposed code.
>> However, it
>> seems to introduce another property, which I think is unnecessary.
>> And I
>> think we want to avoid adding properties, unless it's necessary.
> 
> The consideration isn't a count of the number of properties
> but whether Lily becomes easier to use or not.  I think a \set
> command -is- easier to use, and the documentation would certainly
> be easier to write and understand if we can relegate all
> consideration of the beam-ending rules to just those who
> actually

Re: Music Glossary - 1.64 Concert Pitch (2.12.2)

[demery]

> I think a problem with those sections is that they mix several  
> different concepts in a jumble.

yes.

Dont have the OED handy, this library is very small and lacks a copy, but
the dictionary in my mac and the larger one from the shelf both give
narrow definitions for the entry 'concert pitch', eg, a=440,
internationally agreed on, the pitch at which orchestral instruments are
tuned.  Neither entry discussed the convention of transposed parts.

I suppose the 1960 ISO agreement has to be understood in context.  Also,
please note, ISO standards are not laws, just a formalized understanding
of how things can be done.  Just because there is a standard for what
means 'inch' and another for 'meter', nothing prevents me from working
with brunswicke inch when working with the drawings of Hioronymus
Praetorius from his Sytagma Musicum.

Yes, whatever meanings our documentation uses for the term 'Concert Pitch'
should be discussed in this entry.  I appologize for not realizeing my own
understanding of that term was narrow.

> Concert pitch is simply what the non-transposing instruments play,  
> when presented a notated note.

I now see two meanings.  First is the absolute pitch meaning, a concept
somewhat misleading for predating the early music movement.  Secondary
usage draws on the first meaning and contrasts the actual sounding pitch
with the notated pitch which differ for transposing instruments. 

FWIW, I recall a recent article in Early Music America (might be posted
online, they have a website) discussing the use of varying reference
pitches.

> Orchestras can adjust on the fly

well, they can try, some instruments will have more trouble than others. 
unfretted strings and brass have the most flexibility as they are always
challenged to play in any particular temperament.  Some winds can attempt
embouchure changes, the horn has his fist, but woodwinds trade off
alacrity when having to bend notes by alternate fingerings or embouchure. 
The crumhorn, serpent, and cornetto all have notorius flexibility.  Its
the continuo section where we find the least flexible instruments.

> Pianos are tuned with  
> scale stretch in order to compensate for inharmonicity. 

and how 'best' to do this is subjective, varying with each concert artist
and concert tuner.

> The transposing instruments play a pitch other than notated. 

true when the convention is followed.  As our trombone player has noted,
some players have to get used to multiple notations.  Viola and cello
players have to cope with floating c-clefs; Alto recorder players have to
work from g2 clefs, floating c clefs, and octave-below g clefs.   


I have a music engraving reference at home (Ross comes to mind as the
author) which gives a fairly complete list of transposing instruments,
will try to remember to bring it tomorrow.
-- 
Dana Emery




___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Off topic, Was: Music Glossary - 1.64 Concert Pitch (2.12.2)

[demery]

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009, Mats Bengtsson  said:

> A flute playing friend of mine once demonstrated what happens if you 
> drink a bear 

LOL

I envision Brutus sitting on a keg, playing the flute and passing gas from
both ends.

SKOAL!
-- 
Dana Emery




___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Off topic, Was: Music Glossary - 1.64 Concert Pitch (2.12.2)

[Hans Aberg]

On 5 Apr 2009, at 20:15, Mats Bengtsson wrote:

A flute playing friend of mine once demonstrated what happens if you  
drink a bear just before you play and all of  a sudden a burp  
increases the proportion of carbon dioxide in the breathing air  
significantly, resulting in a much lower pitch.



It could be right, and not an effect of the alcohol and poor  
performance :-), by looking at the formula

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Speed_in_ideal_gases_and_in_air
using the values of gamma and molar weight of air and CO2 given at
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_index
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
I get for pure CO2: sqrt((1.3/44.0095)/(1.4/28.9645))) = 0.7817 =  
-426.3 cents, or more than 4 semitones (a mixture will not lower as  
much).


But whatever in that burp may stick to the pads, producing an annoying  
noise.


  Hans




___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Music Glossary - 1.64 Concert Pitch (2.12.2)

[Hans Aberg]

On 5 Apr 2009, at 20:48,  wrote:

Dont have the OED handy, this library is very small and lacks a  
copy, but

the dictionary in my mac and the larger one from the shelf both give
narrow definitions for the entry 'concert pitch', eg, a=440,
internationally agreed on, the pitch at which orchestral instruments  
are

tuned.  Neither entry discussed the convention of transposed parts.

I suppose the 1960 ISO agreement has to be understood in context.   
Also,
please note, ISO standards are not laws, just a formalized  
understanding

of how things can be done.  Just because there is a standard for what
means 'inch' and another for 'meter', nothing prevents me from working
with brunswicke inch when working with the drawings of Hioronymus
Praetorius from his Sytagma Musicum.

Yes, whatever meanings our documentation uses for the term 'Concert  
Pitch'
should be discussed in this entry.  I appologize for not realizeing  
my own

understanding of that term was narrow.


Concert pitch is simply what the non-transposing instruments play,
when presented a notated note.


I now see two meanings.  First is the absolute pitch meaning, a  
concept

somewhat misleading for predating the early music movement.  Secondary
usage draws on the first meaning and contrasts the actual sounding  
pitch

with the notated pitch which differ for transposing instruments.


The definition "The pitch at which the piano and other non-transposing  
instruments play" is from Harvard Concise Dictionary of Music.


Merriam "Webster's Third International..." suggest concerts pitch can  
mean either tuning standards: "international pitch", from 1939 setting  
middle A = 440 Hz, or "philharmonic pitch", setting middle A = 450 Hz,  
of English origin.


It also defines "transposing instrument" as "a musical instrument that  
sounds pitches different from those indicated by notation".


Since "concert pitch" seems to be ambiguous, it might be better use  
the two terms "tuning pitch" and "not-transposing instrument" in the  
manual, with the glossary or index mentioning "concert pitch" so that  
those that search for it can find the other terms (just an idea).


FWIW, I recall a recent article in Early Music America (might be  
posted

online, they have a website) discussing the use of varying reference
pitches.


It has varied a lot in the past, but A = 440 Hz is also quite old:  
Harvard Concise mentions is used in 1834 by Scheibler (Stuttgart  
pitch). The Wikipedia also has some:

  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(music)#History_of_pitch_standards_in_Western_music


Orchestras can adjust on the fly


well, they can try, some instruments will have more trouble than  
others.
unfretted strings and brass have the most flexibility as they are  
always
challenged to play in any particular temperament.  Some winds can  
attempt

embouchure changes, the horn has his fist, but woodwinds trade off
alacrity when having to bend notes by alternate fingerings or  
embouchure.
The crumhorn, serpent, and cornetto all have notorius flexibility.   
Its

the continuo section where we find the least flexible instruments.


I haven't checked all, but for adjusting intonation, some 20-30 cents  
would suffice. Flutes can do it, and brasses too.



Pianos are tuned with
scale stretch in order to compensate for inharmonicity.


and how 'best' to do this is subjective, varying with each concert  
artist

and concert tuner.


Modern tuning machines like  can measure the  
overtone spectrum, and do a number of compromises. Traditionally it  
happens naturally, as one typically tunes octaves and fifths, i.e.,  
partials 2 and 3, which then will be stretched.



The transposing instruments play a pitch other than notated.


true when the convention is followed.  As our trombone player has  
noted,

some players have to get used to multiple notations.


I think it is orchestral clarinet plays that can learn to transpose on  
the fly, so that they need only one clarinet. Thus, a compose cannot  
be sure that a Bb clarinet is used, if if written so - the performer  
might use on in A. See Blatter, "Instrumentation/Orchestration..."



Viola and cello
players have to cope with floating c-clefs; Alto recorder players  
have to

work from g2 clefs, floating c clefs, and octave-below g clefs.


I have a music engraving reference at home (Ross comes to mind as the
author) which gives a fairly complete list of transposing instruments,
will try to remember to bring it tomorrow.


You might check
  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposing_instrument#List_of_instruments_by_transposition
It does not mention the Garmon (type of accordion), though.

  Hans




___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Concert Pitch (a second try)

[Anthony W. Youngman]

Okay, we've got more feedback (isn't this fun :-). I'll try and do it 
again, following on from the comment that the existing (and my 
replacement) entries actually try to cram too much into the entries.


1.64 Concert pitch

The convention (standardised by ISO 16) that A above middle C represents 
the note at 440 Hertz. This is commonly notated by the statement 
"A=440".


There are many other conventions, such as "diapason normal" which was 
established by French law as "A=435". Many of these conventions have 
fallen into disuse, although there are orchestras which typically tune 
to other pitches (usually pitching A slightly higher in order to sound 
"brighter").


Regardless of the exact frequency of A, instruments which play the 
standard frequency upon reading the note A are typically referred to as 
playing "in concert pitch" or "in C". Typically, these are instruments 
with multiple sounding parts such as tuned percussion or strings.


Instruments which play a completely different note are referred to as 
"transposing instruments". These are typically instruments with a single 
sounding part such as brass and woodwind. For some instruments, both the 
"standard pitch" and "transposing" conventions end up with the same 
result as regards the actual printed music, eg the flute, or a C 
trumpet.


See also: "transposing intruments" and wikipedia entry for concert 
pitch.


1.311 transposing instruments

Instruments where the written note is not the note that the instrument 
is intended to play, according to standard pitch. The reason for this is 
to make it easy for players to switch between similar instruments that 
have different fundamental pitches.


Depending on the design of the instrument, some instruments have a 
lowest (pedal) note whose wavelength is twice the length of the 
instrument and can play all harmonics thereof (1/2, 2/2, 3/2...), while 
others have a pedal note whose wavelength is four times the length of 
the instrument but can only play the odd harmonics thereof (1/4, 3/4, 
5/4 ...).


For brass instruments, the fundamental pitch of the instrument is that 
where the wavelength of the note is the same as the length of the 
instrument. This note is written as middle C in the treble clef, and 
such music is normally referred to as being "in X", indicated by the 
part being notated as for "X instrument". For example, an A trumpet 
would be (approximately) 78cm long (343m/s divided by 440/s = 78cm) and 
the music would be referred to as being "in A", with the instrument 
denoted as "A trumpet".


All brass instruments fall into the category of those whose pedal note 
has a wavelength twice that of the instrument.


FIXME - can a woodwind player expand this
Woodwind instruments can fall into either category of pedal note - the 
clarinet is an example of an instrument with a pedal note with a 
wavelength four times the length of the instrument.

FIXME - how is middle C defined for a woodwind instrument?

When writing music for a transposing instrument, it is normal to refer 
to the instrument by its fundamental, eg "Bb Trumpet, A clarinet". It is 
assumed the music is in Bb or A. If the instrument (eg flute) is 
normally notated in treble clef, then either the instrument's 
fundamental or the transposition should be mentioned if it is not in 
standard pitch ("alto flute in G", "G flute"). If the music is in C, the 
instrument's fundamental should NOT be mentioned, and it should be 
notated as "in C" only if required to avoid confusion.


The intentional side-effect of this convention is that, for all 
instruments in the same family, they share the same fingering for any 
given written note.



--



Can anybody come up with any improvements on this?

Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anth...@thewolery.demon.co.uk



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Reverting Beat Grouping Commands

[Trevor Daniels]

Carl D. Sorensen wrote Sunday, April 05, 2009 7:33 PM

What if we scrapped the current auto-beam code completely, and 
replaced it

with a structured beatGrouping, something like

((denominator (ending-beatGroupings) (subdivide-beatGroupings))
 (denominator2 (ending-beatGroupings) (subdivide-beatGroupings)))

We might then have something like the following in 6/8 time:

((8 (3 3) ())
 (16 (6 6) (6 6))
 (32 (4 4 4 4 4 4) (8 8 8)))

Then, if subdivideBeams  were set to #t, we could reduce the beam 
count for

a given level of beaming at the appropriate point.

I don't know if this is a better solution, but it might improve 
what

currently seems to me to be a very awkward system.

One weakness in this approach is that it provides no way to have 
an
auto-beam-ending rule for 3/32 beams (but I don't know of any 3/32 
beams, so

I don't think that's a real limitation).

David Brobroff's request

could then be met by

((8 (4) ())
 (16 (4 4) ())
 (32 (8 8) (4 4 4 4)))

This would have the downside of requiring a complete redefinition 
every time
you changed the time signature, but it would get rid of the 
current problem
where you have to revert rules before you can add new ones.  It 
would also
put all automatic definitions of autobeam rules in one location in 
the

source tree, rather than having them spread across two files.

I don't know if this proposal has merit or not, but it seems like 
we really
ought to get to *some* combination of syntax and functionality 
that we think

really works.


It definitely has merit!  Let's see if I understand it.
The current (ie in 2.13.1) beam-ending rules are used
only to prevent long beamed runs of 16th and 32nd beams.
Your suggestion easily accommodates all these.  For example,
in 9/4 time there are 16 rules to do this.  These could be
replaced by the far simpler

\set beatGrouping =
 #'( 8 (3 3 3) ())
   (16 (4 4 4 4 4 4) ())
   (32 (8 8 8 8 8 8) ()))

or rather the equivalent in scm/music-functions.scm.  We
could even improve the default by using sub-divided beams,
something we can't do at present.

I can't see anything this can't do.  If by 3/32 beams you
mean beaming 32nd notes in threes, I think it can do this.
For example, in 9/4 you'd need to modify the above to

\set beatLength = #(ly:make-moment 1 32)
\set beatGrouping =
 #'( 8 (12 12 12) ())
   (16 (16 16 16 16 16 16) ())
   (32 (3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3) ()))

There was a discussion some time ago about auto-
beaming east-European rhythms.  See
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2007-12/msg00032.html
It's getting late now, so I'll leave this until tomorrow,
but I wonder if your scheme would handle this?

Trevor




___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Concert Pitch (a second try)

[Hans Aberg]

On 5 Apr 2009, at 23:12, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:


Okay, we've got more feedback (isn't this fun :-).


You might have fun for a life-time! :-)

I'll try and do it again, following on from the comment that the  
existing (and my replacement) entries actually try to cram too much  
into the entries.


1.64 Concert pitch

The convention (standardised by ISO 16) that A above middle C  
represents the note at 440 Hertz. This is commonly notated by the  
statement "A=440".


The Merriam Webster suggested it might mean tuning standatrd: either  
"international pitch" A = 440 Hz, or philharmonic pitch A = 450 Hz...


There are many other conventions, such as "diapason normal" which  
was established by French law as "A=435". Many of these conventions  
have fallen into disuse, although there are orchestras which  
typically tune to other pitches (usually pitching A slightly higher  
in order to sound "brighter").


...and possibly some other tuning standards. Perhaps this link has more:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(music)

Regardless of the exact frequency of A, instruments which play the  
standard frequency upon reading the note A are typically referred to  
as playing "in concert pitch" or "in C". Typically, these are  
instruments with multiple sounding parts such as tuned percussion or  
strings.


The Harvard Concise suggests (or a reading of it) it can also mean  
"non-transposing instrument". This is also mentioned on the Wikipedia  
link above.


Instruments which play a completely different note are referred to  
as "transposing instruments". These are typically instruments with a  
single sounding part such as brass and woodwind. For some  
instruments, both the "standard pitch" and "transposing" conventions  
end up with the same result as regards the actual printed music, eg  
the flute, or a C trumpet.


See also: "transposing intruments" and wikipedia entry for concert  
pitch.


A transposing instrument plays a pitch other than of the notated note.


1.311 transposing instruments

Instruments where the written note is not the note that the  
instrument is intended to play, according to standard pitch. The  
reason for this is to make it easy for players to switch between  
similar instruments that have different fundamental pitches.


Depending on the design of the instrument, some instruments have a  
lowest (pedal) note whose wavelength is twice the length of the  
instrument and can play all harmonics thereof (1/2, 2/2, 3/2...),
while others have a pedal note whose wavelength is four times the  
length of the instrument but can only play the odd harmonics thereof  
(1/4, 3/4, 5/4 ...).


This is for pipes. Strings should have the length of the wave length  
in the string (not the sir, though). Wind instruments behaving as open  
pipes has the first, whereas closed-open pipes as the second (like  
clarinets).


For brass instruments, the fundamental pitch of the instrument is  
that where the wavelength of the note is the same as the length of  
the instrument. This note is written as middle C in the treble clef,  
and such music is normally referred to as being "in X", indicated by  
the part being notated as for "X instrument". For example, an A  
trumpet would be (approximately) 78cm long (343m/s divided by 440/s  
= 78cm) and the music would be referred to as being "in A", with the  
instrument denoted as "A trumpet".


All brass instruments fall into the category of those whose pedal  
note has a wavelength twice that of the instrument.


Though not true for a flute with a Bb joint.


FIXME - can a woodwind player expand this
Woodwind instruments can fall into either category of pedal note -  
the clarinet is an example of an instrument with a pedal note with a  
wavelength four times the length of the instrument.

FIXME - how is middle C defined for a woodwind instrument?

When writing music for a transposing instrument, it is normal to  
refer to the instrument by its fundamental, eg "Bb Trumpet, A  
clarinet". It is assumed the music is in Bb or A. If the instrument  
(eg flute) is normally notated in treble clef, then either the  
instrument's fundamental or the transposition should be mentioned if  
it is not in standard pitch ("alto flute in G", "G flute"). If the  
music is in C, the instrument's fundamental should NOT be mentioned,  
and it should be notated as "in C" only if required to avoid  
confusion.


The intentional side-effect of this convention is that, for all  
instruments in the same family, they share the same fingering for  
any given written note.


That is probably the starting point: the original idea is to simplify  
fingering. The musician just plays the written note with the fingering  
of the instrument in C, and if the transposing has been written right,  
out sounds the right note.


So an alto flute in G will play G below middle C when the fingering of  
middle C is taken. It It plays a note a fourth below the written one.  
Therefore, if one wa

Re: Reverting Beat Grouping Commands

[Carl D. Sorensen]

On 4/5/09 3:36 PM, "Trevor Daniels"  wrote:

> 
> 
> Carl D. Sorensen wrote Sunday, April 05, 2009 7:33 PM
> 
>> What if we scrapped the current auto-beam code completely, and
>> replaced it
>> with a structured beatGrouping, something like
>> 
>> ((denominator (ending-beatGroupings) (subdivide-beatGroupings))
>>  (denominator2 (ending-beatGroupings) (subdivide-beatGroupings)))
>> 
> 
> It definitely has merit!  Let's see if I understand it.
> The current (ie in 2.13.1) beam-ending rules are used
> only to prevent long beamed runs of 16th and 32nd beams.
> Your suggestion easily accommodates all these.  For example,
> in 9/4 time there are 16 rules to do this.  These could be
> replaced by the far simpler
> 
> \set beatGrouping =
>   #'( 8 (3 3 3) ())
> (16 (4 4 4 4 4 4) ())
> (32 (8 8 8 8 8 8) ()))

You're missing an opening parentheses, I think.

> 
> or rather the equivalent in scm/music-functions.scm.  We
> could even improve the default by using sub-divided beams,
> something we can't do at present.

So do you want to try to implement this, or do you want me
to work on it?  If you're interested, I'd just as soon have you do it.
But if you want me to do it, I'm willing.
> 
> I can't see anything this can't do.  If by 3/32 beams you
> mean beaming 32nd notes in threes, I think it can do this.

No, I don't mean beaming 32nd notes in threes.  In the current
auto-beam-settings, there is a beam-numerator, which can be something other
than 1 (although I don't know what it means to have the beam numerator be
something else; every beam I know of has a numerator of 1).  I just meant
that this plan would do away with the beam numerator, and the beam numerator
would always be assumed to be 1.

> For example, in 9/4 you'd need to modify the above to
> 
> \set beatLength = #(ly:make-moment 1 32)
> \set beatGrouping =
>   #'( 8 (12 12 12) ())
> (16 (16 16 16 16 16 16) ())
> (32 (3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3) ()))

This isn't the way I'd do it.  I would never change beatLength; for me,
beatLength remains the numerator of the time signature.  Also, for me, the
groupings for each beam type are always in the units of that beam type, so

\set beatGrouping =
#'(( 8 (6 6 6)())
   (16 (6 6 6 6 6 6)())
   (32 (3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3) ()))

> 
> There was a discussion some time ago about auto-
> beaming east-European rhythms.  See
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2007-12/msg00032.html
> It's getting late now, so I'll leave this until tomorrow,
> but I wonder if your scheme would handle this?

I couldn't understand what the issue was in Hans's post.  I thought tuplets
were always beamed, and I don't know what subdivisions he wanted to have in
the quadruplets.

Carl



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: [PATCH] Docs: IR: Move 'details to user grob property list

[Patrick McCarty]

On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 01:53:43PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/3/09 1:43 PM, "Patrick McCarty"  wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Carl D. Sorensen  
> > wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 
> >> Unfortunately, there are different 'details lists for different grobs,
> >> so there's not a generic set of defaults that we can list, if I understand
> >> correctly.
> > 
> > If 'details is moved to the list of user grob properties, then every
> > grob containing default settings for 'details will have the
> > appropriate values listed in the Internals Reference.  After `make
> > web', here are two pages that benefit from this change:
> > 
> > http://uoregon.edu/~pmccarty/texi2html/Stem.html
> > http://uoregon.edu/~pmccarty/texi2html/Slur.html
> 
> Cool!  I really like how that works!

So, is the patch okay as it is?


Thanks,
Patrick


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: [PATCH] Docs: IR: Move 'details to user grob property list

[Patrick McCarty]

On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 08:59:31PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2009/4/3 Carl D. Sorensen :
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/3/09 1:43 PM, "Patrick McCarty"  wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Carl D. Sorensen  
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> 
> >>> Unfortunately, there are different 'details lists for different
> >>> grobs, so there's not a generic set of defaults that we can
> >>> list, if I understand correctly.
> >>
> >> If 'details is moved to the list of user grob properties, then every
> >> grob containing default settings for 'details will have the
> >> appropriate values listed in the Internals Reference.  After `make
> >> web', here are two pages that benefit from this change:
> >>
> >> http://uoregon.edu/~pmccarty/texi2html/Stem.html
> >> http://uoregon.edu/~pmccarty/texi2html/Slur.html
> >
> > Cool!  I really like how that works!
> 
> Gets the thumbs up here, too. :)
> 
> Now all we need is some way of extending the documentation
> automatically for nested properties.

That would be nice.

Implementing a way of documenting the nested properties is one thing,
and figuring out a good way to *present* them in the IR is another
issue.


-Patrick


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel