Trevor Daniels wrote:
Going off to make a cup of
coffee I asked my wife what she would suggest.
She said instantly, "Specialist topics" or
"Topics for Specialists". I could add
"Specialist Notation" or "Notation for
Specialists". Any of these any good?
I prefer the last one.
I agree with
2007/9/22, Eyolf Østrem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 22.09.2007 (11:09), Trevor Daniels wrote:
> > Going off to make a cup of
> > coffee I asked my wife what she would suggest.
> > She said instantly, "Specialist topics" or
> > "Topics for Specialists". I could add
> > "Specialist Notation" or "Not
On 22.09.2007 (11:09), Trevor Daniels wrote:
> Going off to make a cup of
> coffee I asked my wife what she would suggest.
> She said instantly, "Specialist topics" or
> "Topics for Specialists". I could add
> "Specialist Notation" or "Notation for
> Specialists". Any of these any good?
> I p
Graham
> Remember that I'm totally open to renaming this
> chapter name (if we keep
> it as a chapter). I'll do it as soon as I get
> something better than
> "Purpose-specific notation".
>
OK. No objection to keeping them if the heading
is broadened. So I tried headings like
"esoteric topi
Trevor Daniels wrote:
Well, yes - at least one other likes it. But only if every
sub-section within it concerns an actual instrument, and the
list of instruments is complete (at least as far as the
instrument-specific parts of LP are concerned).
There's wide support (well, two people) for prom
Graham (late cc to list)
> GENERAL DISCUSSION
>
> - I still like the division of musical notation /
> instrument-specific? No? Nobody else?
Well, yes - at least one other likes it. But only if every
sub-section within it concerns an actual instrument, and the
list of instruments is complete (a
