Am 03.04.2017 um 20:05 schrieb Renato Fabbri: > ok, I revised the proposal: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aGLfUGgbfV4_izmALUcb0UGQ3k4t-5tOb6rUFNnEIqc/edit?usp=sharing > it is better now with many writing corrections but also with some better > exposition of ideias. > All the changes were minor, but if you know a way for us to upload this > updated version of the proposal, > it might be .worth it.
The GSoC program rules explicitly state that we must not consider any changes applied to the draft document but base our judgment on the final PDF version. This is not to say that the potential mentor will not be influenced by such changes ;-) Urs > > Best, > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Renato Fabbri <renato.fab...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I took all your observations in account (thanks!) and wrote a proposal: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aGLfUGgbfV4_izmALUcb0UGQ3k4t- >> 5tOb6rUFNnEIqc/edit?usp=sharing >> It is submitted to the GSoC interface. >> Is closing time for the proposals, so I should only be able to enhance >> this draft. >> I should read it again soon and make minor corrections, for example. >> >> Best and Thanks once more! >> >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:18 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >>> Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: >>> >>>> On 4/2/17 1:13 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Renato Fabbri" >>>> <lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=byu....@gnu.org on behalf of >>>> renato.fab...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ok, I looked through the LilyPond code. >>>>> >>>>> Notes: >>>>> *) There seems to be some emphasis on the perspective given in the book >>>>> Die Jazzmethode fuer Klavier 1 (Klaus Ignatzek). >>>>> Can someone send me a PDF of this book or know how can I find >>>>> an online copy at least of the most important parts for this case? >>>> I do not have a PDF or a reference. But I think that the emphasis on >>>> Ignatzek need not be exclusive. That is, Ignatzek has a point of view on >>>> chords. So do Brandt and Roemer. Lilypond should be able to support >>>> anybody's view, not just one person's. >>>> >>>>> *) Just so I (and other proponents) get it very clear, what do we need >>>>> beyond our current capability exposed in the snippet: >>>>> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/lilypond.git/tree/ >>>>> Documentation/snippets/chord-name-exceptions.ly >>>> This capability reflects the current state of LilyPond's chord naming >>>> structure, which is to try to guess the name of the chord by analyzing >>>> pitches. So if you want to define a new chord name, you do it by >>>> defining the list of pitches in the chord. It's doable, but the chord >>>> itself doesn't carry any semantic information. >>> Except when it does. Music properties "inversion", "octavation", "bass" >>> carry semantic information beyond the chord pitch. >>> >>>> The proposal is to put the necessary information describing the >>>> semantics of the chord in the chord itself, rather than trying to >>>> recreate it from the notes present in the chord. >>> I am not saying that the current semantic information attached to chords >>> by the \chordmode parser is suitable for all purposes and/or >>> defined/utilized/documented to the best possible degree. >>> >>> But ignoring it would make for an awkward start. >>> >>>> Here's an old proposal that never made it to application: >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2009-01/msg00897.html >>>> >>>> Here's an interesting discussion on chord names that addresses a >>> suspended >>>> chord: >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-11/msg00864.html >>>> >>>> Here's another thread that shows problems with chord naming: >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2008-02/msg00391.html >>>> >>>> Here's an email discussing another possible benefit of the approach: >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2014-11/msg00155.html >>>> >>>> And another discussion of some of the challenges: >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2002-05/msg00069.html >>>> >>>> Here's one that actually started the thinking for the GSOC project: >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2014-12/msg00617.html >>>> >>>> Somehow the last thread got broken; here's the follow up: >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-01/msg00065.html >>>> >>>> I hope this is helpful. >>> Certainly something to look through. >>> >>> -- >>> David Kastrup >>> >> >> >> -- >> Renato Fabbri >> GNU/Linux User #479299 >> labmacambira.sourceforge.net >> > > -- u...@openlilylib.org https://openlilylib.org http://lilypondblog.org _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
