Re: Re[2]: Patch: figured bass. [Comments wanted]

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

>Maybe use of the term "fingering" in this context is misleading.
>Of course, I did not mean the numbers to represent the player's
>fingers, but rather number of (diatonic) keys between the fingers
>(i.e. intervals).  What I wanted to stress is the contrast to chord
>notation as used today: The note that is written out in continuo is not
>necessariliy the fundamental tone (is that the right english term?) of the
>chord, as e.g. "c" in <c e g> or <e g c> or <g c e>.

I'm sorry to have caused this argument. I used chord notation, with
numbers deriving from pitches counted from central C, simply because
it was an easy way to get the information across to the right
engravers. 

>I totally agree.  I just wanted to say that, from a technical point of
>view, if a lilypond user puts in ornaments, they would have to be somehow
>stripped off before generating figures.

Well, if they're generated from notes, the figures and the bass part
will have to be entered separately, so ornaments in the bass part
won't hamper the figuring (or is this not what you mean?)

(combining the entry is not feasible, since it wouldn't be possible to
add any kind of symbols to the bass part.)

>challenge to enter both, a figured bass and a fully-fledged cembalo part,
>and to let lily it automatically check the cembalo part against the
>figured bass for consistency.  This is, why converting notes into figures
>may be intersting.

I head becomes tired only from thinking about this :-)


-- 

Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden    | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/