[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Microtonal support
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: Microtonal support |
Date: |
Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:24:23 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 12:09:10PM +0800, Graham Breed wrote:
> I've been investigating the new pitch model with Hans. It is, in
> fact, better than either of us thought but some of that isn't
> documented. So pay attention.
Great! I'm not certain if any of the doc team has much experience
with microtones -- let's just assume that they don't. Could you
propose some changes to the docs to make this more clear? Ideally
it would look something like this:
----
In NR 15.2.4 Accidentals, add this paragraph and example after the
third current paragraph:
blah blah blah
\relative c' {
b4 l8 a8 h4
}
In addition, please add a new subsection NR 15.2.5 Changing
default microtone definitions, which would contain the following:
blee blee blee
\relative c' {
b4 l16 e32 e4..
}
blargl blargl
\relative c' {
b4 \times 2/3{ l8 a r} g8.. l4*4/3 e8
}
---
Even if your proposed changes need a bit of modification to fit
into the existing docs, having a concrete proposal will help us a
lot. Again, please assume that the doc team knows nothing about
microtones -- this will help us avoid misunderstandings.
> First, alterations are specified in terms of what the documentation
> vaguely calls "whole tones". They are specifically intervals of 200
> cents or steps of 6 note equal temperament. For many tunings the size
> of a tone or double sharp will not have this value.
Could you identify specific place(s) where this should be stated,
and/or reword the sentences to avoid the vague "whole tones" term?
Any doc person want to be the contact person for this? If not, I
could handle it. (kind-of starting GOP two weeks early)
Cheers,
- Graham