Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question

[David Fedoruk]

Hello:

I've been watching this discussion or debate. There are two ways to
look at this problem. The first is from a programmer's point of view
where the programmer is experienced with some computer languages,
these days its upper level languages more and more. For these people,
lilypond typesetting code feels comfortable when it is syntactically
correct and when it makes sense in either computer or mathematical
terms. A mathematical algorithm is what they are used to seeing.

The other group has less mathematical knowledge, very little (very
little compared to a programmer working on a major project like
Lilypond) programming knowledge or experience. In all likelihood the
only thing that connects these people is the printed musical score.

At least in part I think these points have already been made. The
question that occurs to me as a novice Lilypond user  (and one who
jumps in the deep end with complex scores!)  is this: How will you
deal with other types of prolongation or compression of notes into one
or more beats or where the composers intentions are clear but they are
not immediately mathematically correct?

The example below is a single bar from a Beethoven Piano Sonata (Opus
31 number 3, 1st mvt. bar 53) in which two more out of the ordinary
examples occur next to each other. You will excuse any mistakes in
coding here, this doesn't render as it should.

   upper = \relative c'' {
       \clef treble
       \key ef \major
       \time 3

        bf16[d f ef] \times 5/4 d16[ ef f g a] bf32[bf a c bf d c bf a g c g ef]

}

You can see how there are three beams, one for the notes in eaech
beat. The first and second beat are quite clear, but the third one has
eluded me as yet. The score has 12 thirty-second notes beamed together
with  "12" below the note heads.

The printed score is clear to the performer. The Lilypond code I
suspect is far more complex. The only way that 12 thirty-second notes
will fit into one beat is if they are triplets, but in context, they
are not played or heard as triplets.

My only comment in this discussion is that the Lilypond code to
represent this short passage should be as clear as the printed score I
am reading.


> No argument here - I wasn't advocating a specific syntax, but simply
> raising the possibility that the tuplet's span could be an argument of
> the function. Otherwise, we're simply turning \times into \tuplet
> without really changing anything about its functionality.

I think I agree with this, except that any type of prolongation or
compression of notes should be able to use this function.

cheers


--
David Fedoruk


http://recordjackethistorian.wordpress.com
"Music is enough for one's life time, but one life time is not enough
for music" Sergei Rachmaninov