[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: missing term in Icking glossary
From: |
David Raleigh Arnold |
Subject: |
Re: missing term in Icking glossary |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:19:26 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050602) |
Paul Scott wrote:
> joe ferguson wrote:
>
>> My experience is pretty well limited the choral literature. In that
>> genre the usual interpretation of the tenuto is one of subtle
>> emphasis, as an indication of phrasing.
>>
>> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I would say that this is a more universal observation. E.g. the
>>> interpretation of sfz , > and ^ also depend on the composer/era.
>>
>>
> IOW I don't care what you call it. I just want to be able to engrave
> the musical symbol. We could discuss how to interpret it for a long
> time but that's not really the job of the LilyPond docs.
The glossary is supposed to deal with how to interpret it.
Who disagrees that the tenuto mark is the worst
dog's dinner in music notation? As long as the glossary entry
makes clear that it's interpretation is not certain I would think
that few would object. A list giving a variety of different definitions
might help. daveA
- Re: missing term in Icking glossary, libero . mureddu3, 2005/07/29
- Re: missing term in Icking glossary, David Raleigh Arnold, 2005/07/29
- Re: missing term in Icking glossary, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/07/29
- Re: missing term in Icking glossary, joe ferguson, 2005/07/29
- Re: missing term in Icking glossary, Paul Scott, 2005/07/29
- Re: missing term in Icking glossary,
David Raleigh Arnold <=
- Re: missing term in Icking glossary, Graham Percival, 2005/07/29
- Re: missing term in Icking glossary, libero . mureddu3, 2005/07/30
- Re: missing term in Icking glossary, Mats Bengtsson, 2005/07/30
Re: missing term in Icking glossary, libero . mureddu3, 2005/07/29