[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Docs - unfretted strings

From: Trevor Daniels
Subject: Re: Docs - unfretted strings
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:10:43 +0100

Graham Percival wrote Sunday, September 28, 2008 11:48 AM

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 11:35:36 +0100
"Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:

I just got round to looking at Unfretted strings in the Notation
Reference, and I'm not very happy with this subdivision.

1.  It makes a nice contrast with "fretted strings".

True, but this is hardly important compared with
ease of use.

2.  There's almost no content in that section anyway.

Well, no.  No one has written any yet. I was about to

3.  I can only imagine about two pages of content for bowed
strings, anyway (e.g., artificial harmonics, and... and... well,
that's pretty much it)
If we might possibly have more than two pages for Bowed strings,
I'd be more inclined to give it its own section.  But really, all
I can imagine at the moment is one paragraph + example, plus
references to NR 1.

Remember the idea of these sections was to provide
links to all the other sections of the manual which
were relevant to that particular group of instruments,
so someone with an interest in an instrument didn't have
to go searching through all the manual.

So Bowed strings should contain links to or examples
of at least
 artificial harmonics,
 bowing indications,
 snap pizzicato,
string quartet template (I'm not a string player - I'm sure you can think of more)

Then under harp there would be quite a lot
of the refs used under Keyboards, as harps play
chords with two hands, as well as the new pedaling
indications.  None of which are relevant to bowed
strings - the source of my problem.

This would mean splitting unfretted.itely into two files.
Would this give you any problems at this late stage?

No.  The bigger problem is adding another LSR tag, making sure to
tag at least one snippet with it so doesn't break, etc.
Not that it's a "big" problem; it'll be about 1 hour of work split
between those involved.

OK, let's wait to hear from John and Valentin on this point.

- Graham


reply via email to

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