Part 1 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26

[Kurt Kroon]

On 1/26/08 9:28 PM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Final call for comments on NR 1.1 Pitches.  Please note that this
> is our "demonstration" chapter, which will form the guidelines for
> the rest of the NR.  So if there's anything that you don't like
> about the general layout and policies of this section, please
> speak up now, before the entire NR is changed to match.
> 
> Read it online, download the pdf, print it out and read on a bus with a
> red pen in hand... please review it any way that suits you.  :)  I'll
> wait a week before declaring this section "perfect".

I hope I'm not too late with my observations.  The page numbers refer to the
PDF.  My changes are explained in [square brackets], which shouldn't be
included in the content.

On page 1 -- parallel construction -- the introductory phrase in 1.1 says
"There are three steps to this process: input, modifying, and output." These
three items should use the same word form, viz., "input, modification, and
output", or "inputting, modifying, and outputting".

Of course, the titles of the following subsections should be considered.
They are "Writing pitches", "Changing multiple pitches" (but see below), and
"Displaying pitches", respectively. So perhaps the phrase above should be
further changed to "writing, changing, and displaying."

On page 2 -- the second part of the second bullet in the list under
"Relative octave entry" should read "... relative [deleted ly] to the pitch
calculated without an [added an] octave mark."

On page 3 -- Paragraph in the middle of the page, the second sentence should
read "Inside [deleted of] chords, the next note is always relative to the
preceding one."

Same page -- the second sentence of the last paragraph should read
"Therefore, and E-double-sharp [deleted extra "sharp"] following a B will be
placed higher, while an F-double-flat will [replaced would with will to
parallel the verb form used above] be placed lower."

On page 5 -- "Accidentals are only printed on tied notes that [not which]
begin a new system:"

On page 6 -- "Known issues and warnings" -- "There are no generally accepted
standards for denoting three-quarter flats ..."  So there are generally
accepted standards for denoting one-quarter flats?  Or should this read
"There are no generally accepted standards for denoting quarter-tone
accidentals ..."

Same page, next section -- "include the language-specific [hyphenated] init
file.  For example, [added] to use English note names [end added] add
\include ..."

Ditto, below first table -- "The note names for quarter-tones [hyphenated]
..."

On page 7 -- the block beginning "In Dutch, aes is contracted to ..." and
ending just before the See also really belongs after the first table (before
the section on quarter-tones).

Same page, header of section 1.1.2 -- Should be "Changing pitches" to
parallel the headers of the other subsections.

Someone's already pointed out the transposition typo, so I'll move along.

On page 8 -- the definition of "pass" is "not fail", therefore the phrase
"passes without fail" is redundant.  It should be "passes" or "does not
fail", depending on what should be emphasized.

Same page, "Transpose" section -- a technical question about the \transpose
syntax: are frompitch and topitch relative or absolute?  Would it be useful
to include that information?

On page 9, middle of the page -- "... both \transpose c cis or \transpose c
des will transpose up a semitone [instead of 'half a tone']

On page 10, first paragraph -- In that case, "Double accidentals ..."  What
is this sentence quoting?  Perhaps it should just be integrated into the
sentence.

Ditto, in line 4 (a comment) of the Scheme code -- "alteration, a, in
quarter-tone [hyphenated] ..."

On page 11, "Known issues and warnings", just before section 1.1.3 -- "...
since \relative has [present tense to match the rest of the sentence] no
effect ..."

To be continued ...

Kurtis