lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

 From: Erik Sandberg Subject: Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 14:23:47 +0100 User-agent: KMail/1.9.5

On Monday 25 December 2006 06:32, David Fedoruk wrote:
> Hello:
>
> I've been watching this discussion or debate. There are two ways to
> look at this problem. The first is from a programmer's point of view
> where the programmer is experienced with some computer languages,
> these days its upper level languages more and more. For these people,
> lilypond typesetting code feels comfortable when it is syntactically
> correct and when it makes sense in either computer or mathematical
> terms. A mathematical algorithm is what they are used to seeing.
>
> The other group has less mathematical knowledge, very little (very
> little compared to a programmer working on a major project like
> Lilypond) programming knowledge or experience. In all likelihood the
> only thing that connects these people is the printed musical score.
>
> At least in part I think these points have already been made. The
> question that occurs to me as a novice Lilypond user  (and one who
> jumps in the deep end with complex scores!)  is this: How will you
> deal with other types of prolongation or compression of notes into one
> or more beats or where the composers intentions are clear but they are
> not immediately mathematically correct?
>
> The example below is a single bar from a Beethoven Piano Sonata (Opus
> 31 number 3, 1st mvt. bar 53) in which two more out of the ordinary
> examples occur next to each other. You will excuse any mistakes in
> coding here, this doesn't render as it should.
>
>     upper = \relative c'' {
>         \clef treble
>         \key ef \major
>         \time 3
>
>       bf16[d f ef] \times 5/4 d16[ ef f g a] bf32[bf a c bf d c bf a g c g ef]
>
> }
>
> You can see how there are three beams, one for the notes in eaech
> beat. The first and second beat are quite clear, but the third one has
> eluded me as yet. The score has 12 thirty-second notes beamed together
> with  "12" below the note heads.
>
> The printed score is clear to the performer. The Lilypond code I
> suspect is far more complex. The only way that 12 thirty-second notes
> will fit into one beat is if they are triplets, but in context, they
> are not played or heard as triplets.
>
> My only comment in this discussion is that the Lilypond code to
> represent this short passage should be as clear as the printed score I

try \times 8/12 { ... }

(by default, this will probably display as 12:8 above the notes, which can be
tweaked to just show 12)

IMHO, this is an argument for a mathematical notation: You must know what you
are doing to notate the music (i.e., multiplying durations with 8/12), just
saying that a 12 should be displayed above would make it difficult to
maintain the .ly code.

--
Erik