[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Describing instruments

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Describing instruments
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:53:11 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux)

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 09:06:32PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> If you transpose music, Lilypond could warn if notes become unplayable
>> on a baroque soprano recorder.  Because the range is left, or because a
>> particular semitone is not on the instrument.  Similar for other
>> instruments.
> ...
>> It would also be helpful for arrangers and composers to have a databank
>> of instruments available, so that they don't go to the orchestra with
>> their finished scores and get told "Dude, that's not playable on a
>> standard bassoon."
> I don't think that lilypond should serve as a crutch to composer
> who know so little about their craft that they write unplayable
> notes.

Lilypond is quite useful for rearranging material in a huff, matching it
to a soloist's requirements.  Or the requirements of ad-hoc
orchestration.  If you meet for an open jam session and know one hour in
advance just what instruments will be available, having Lilypond help
with the proofreading is nothing to be ashamed of.

I don't think that restricting Lilypond's usefulness to those people who
are experts in every musical discipline except engraving is a design
goal worth pursuing.

If lilypond can deliver the best crutch available to some people, why
saw it off intentionally?

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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