[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Jul 2012 06:11:50 +0200 (CEST) |
> This is kind of the nub of the issue. I agree that the notation for
> staff pitches (and octaves) is going to remain stable -- but I'm
> _not_ convinced that you can guarantee stability for accidentals or
> durations.
At least for German, the current syntax is the only good one IMHO,
both for accidentals (for the twelve tones of an octave) and rhythm.
Werner
- Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not, (continued)
- Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not, Trevor Daniels, 2012/07/26
- Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not, Joseph Rushton Wakeling, 2012/07/26
- Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not, David Kastrup, 2012/07/26
- Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not, Joseph Rushton Wakeling, 2012/07/26
- Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not, Graham Percival, 2012/07/26
- Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not, Joseph Rushton Wakeling, 2012/07/27
- Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not, Graham Percival, 2012/07/27
- Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not, Joseph Rushton Wakeling, 2012/07/27
- Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not,
Werner LEMBERG <=
- Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not, David Kastrup, 2012/07/28
- Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not, Werner LEMBERG, 2012/07/28
- Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not, David Kastrup, 2012/07/28
- Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not, Werner LEMBERG, 2012/07/28
Re: GOP2-3 - GLISS or not, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2012/07/27