Re: sustainOn

[Mark Knoop]

On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 16:55 +0200, James E. Bailey wrote:
> See, this is why I should subscribe to the development list…
> While changing sustainDown/sustainUp to sustainOn/sustainOff makes  
> sense in the lilypond internals, it really doesn't make sense  
> musically. No one is going to confuse placing a sustain marking above  
> the staff. They don't go there, they never go there, that makes about  
> as much sense as putting guitar fretting or tablature below the staff,  
> they don't go there, it would be confusing to have the option.  
> sustainDown was one of the things that makes lilypond so normal. You  
> play a piano, you push down on the pedal, and it sustains. In computer  
> terms, something is switched on, but computer language doesn't have to  
> mimic what the computer does. Lilypond syntax is really logical, this  
> is a step in the illogical direction, if you ask me. It's up there  
> with changing figured bass so that it's input backwards from how  
> anyone conceptualises the musical term.
> 
> I vote, as a pianist, for sustainDown/sustainUp. Who's with me?

I, too, am a pianist, but I have no problem with the change. Firstly,
sustain markings _are_ sometimes put in different places (Beethoven
always wrote pedal markings between the staves); secondly, on and off
are not exactly difficult to understand.

And thirdly, they're only predefined commands - use your own if you're
really confused by them.

-- 
Mark Knoop