Re: [PATCH] Doc: Further Reading for contemporary music

[Trevor Daniels]

Graham Percival wrote Monday, September 07, 2009 12:53 AM


> On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 11:22:42PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> > Joseph Wakeling wrote Sunday, September 06, 2009 10:36 PM
> >
> > > This probably _is_ something which should be in the docs as it's 
> > > not
> > > something you would imagine would be a solution.
> >
> > Could you let me have a suitable form of words?  I suggest a new
> > section in the CG - 1.3.3 Mailing a patch.
>
> No; dump it in the Advanced git section.  It's not something we
> want to insist that first-time contributors do.  Once they show
> themselves to be regular, and get more excited about seeing their
> work being added to the official docs, *then* we'll ask them to do
> this.  Get them hooked first.

Are you sure?  I can't see anything that tells first-time
contributors how to mail a patch.  I've had trouble with
every one so far - it seems they all use Thunderbird.  In
fact I'm surprised that bouncing their first few attempts
because they don't apply hasn't put off more of them.

> > > As for the patch: this particular part of the contemporary music 
> > > docs
> > > ('Further reading') is something it would be great for other 
> > > people to
> > > pitch in on.  I've split the section into two: on the one hand 
> > > books
> > > and
> > > articles (including webpages) that are useful; on the other, 
> > > scores and
> > > musical extracts (again, possibly including online examples) 
> > > that are
> > > interesting with respect to learning about contemporary 
> > > notation.
> >
> > This information is undeniably useful, but I'm not sure it should
> > be part of the *LilyPond* Notation Reference.  We haven't 
> > included
> > external references like this elsewhere, yet the Stone and Read 
> > books
> > are very general and useful to all kinds of musical notation.
> >
> > I'll wait for comment from Graham (and others) before pushing 
> > this.
>
> Hmm.  I'd forgotten (and still can't remember!) that World music
> had such a section.  At the very minimum, that section should be
> renamed to "Further reading for arabic music" or "Arabic future
> reading" or something like that.

Done

> In the case of Arabic music, I think part of the argument (in
> favor) was that the notation isn't standard, but the author(s) did
> the best they could, and people interested in seeing the
> inconsistencies can progress to X, Y, and Z.  It's also only one
> page... I could see a section on contemporary music easily
> becoming a monster.  Especially if it includes scores.
>
> I guess I just don't have any firm feelings on this at the moment.

Neither did I, but as we have one in favour (Joe)
and two ambivalent I've pushed the changes.  As
this is a manual on LilyPond notation rather than
contemporary music we must keep this section brief
and directly relevant to LilyPond notation.

Trevor