[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches

From: Mats Bengtsson
Subject: Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:50:47 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20070716)

A few comments:

- In "Relative octave entry", I would reorder the items in the itemized list and move the first item last (or at least below the currently second item), since the other items explain the concept of "relative to ..." which is mentioned in the
 first item.
Also, in the (currently) last item, I would start the last sentence with "For example
 '' and ,, will alter the ...".

- In Accidentals, I wouldn't refer to "Nordic and Germanic languages", since both Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and German use "-iss" and "-ess" (admittedly the same concept, but a different spelling). I just noticed that this is wrong also in the Glossary, don't understand how that information has survived so many years. The spelling with a single "s", I've only seen in Dutch so we are very lucky that Han-Wen and Jan
 were dutch, since it saves typing.

- In "Transpose" at the end of the text describing how to handle transposing instruments, I would replace "would" with "could" in "... you would wrap the existing music ..." since this is just one alternative. You could off course also get the same result with a
 single \transpose command, such as
\transpose f bes \musicInBflat
I like the current example, though, since it shows how to wrap things together.

- The example with neutraliseMusic doesn't seem to work, right?

- In "Clef", the text on "These same clef symbols are used in different positions on the staff to change the ..." seems more appropriate in a music theory treatise than here, but maybe it doesn't hurt to include it as long as a competent musician doesn't
 get offended by the trivial information.

- In Clef, there's a "% Begin verbatim" shown in the HTML output, which probably shouldn't be there. Also, isn't it too much redundancy in "by setting the explicitClefVisibility Staff property to the value | end-of-line-invisible: \set Staff.explicitClefVisibility = #end-of-line-invisible"?

|- In the final example of "Clef", there's something fishy with the line breaks. The text refers to "the second line" and there is a \break command in the code shown,
 still we only see a single score line in the typeset example.

- In "Key signature", the explanation of keySignature is wrong. One alternative is to
"... The format of this command is a list: |
\set Staff.keySignature = #'(((octave . step) . alter) ||((octave . step) . alter) ...)| where, ..." However, if we compare to the information in the IR, we see that this does not tell the full story. For each item in the list, you can also use the alternative format (step . alter)
 which specifies that the same alteration should hold in all octaves.

- In "Instrument transpositions", it should be clarified already in the first sentence that this only relates to scores where not all parts are typeset in concert pitch. Also, you shouldn't have to read half a page to realize that it only influences MIDI output and que notes. Finally, I guess it would make sense to cite this section from "Transpose".

- In "Ambitus", the last example ( seems like bogus to me. A relevant use of X-offset is shown already in the second example of the section. In the last example, the setting does not influence the result at all, since the setting is done in the Voice context whereas the engraver is in the Staff context. Also, there's no point in removing the engravers from the Voice context (where they don't exist by

- In "Note heads", why not move the subsection "Special noteheads" first?
 (Is it "noteheads" or "note heads"?) since, at least to me, it seems much
 less exotic than the other subsections.


Graham Percival wrote:
I'm still seeking comments on NR 1.1 Pitches.  As far as I know,
only one advanced user has read the whole thing in the past month.
If you read it and didn't see any problems, please let me know.

View it here (and not on!)

A pdf is available.  The section is 24 pages; if you prefer
viewing documentation on paper, then please consider printing it
out.  You could read it on a bus/subway, under the table during a
boring business meeting, or even during an orchestra rehearsal
while the conductor fixes mistakes in the viola section.  Unless
you play viola, of course.

I know you're all sick of me asking for comments about this
section, but it's important to catch mistakes before people start
translating -- if we discover mistakes after the translations are
done, we need to update documents in every language, instead of
just the English docs.

Also, this is the first part of the NR to be updated.  The rest of
the NR will follow the layout of 1.1 Pitches.  If there's any
problems with the layout / formatting, then I *really* want to
know now, before we edit the rest of the docs to match this

Here is the current TODO list; don't report any issues which are
already on this list.


- headword could be improved (line-break)
- some minor formatting issues with included LSR stuff.

POSTPONED  (ie after GDP is over)

Note names in other languages:
- table formatting - pitches in Turkish Maquam and other microtonal systems?

- Graham

lilypond-user mailing list

        Mats Bengtsson
        Signal Processing
        Signals, Sensors and Systems
        Royal Institute of Technology
        SE-100 44  STOCKHOLM
        Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463                         
       Fax:   (+46) 8 790 7260
        Email: address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]