Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
> -- Forwarded message -- > From: David Kastrup > To: Kieren MacMillan > Cc: Carl Sorensen , LilyPond development < > lilypond-devel@gnu.org> > Bcc: > Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:11:03 +0100 > Subject: Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator > Kieren MacMillan writes: > > > [David K:] > >> 8/20 does not specify more than the basic > >> subdivision for expressing beats (not necessarily identical with the > >> number of beats as signatures like 9/8 show) > > > > Ah, I think I now see where your confusion lies. > > It's great that you show so much patience with rank beginners in > LilyPond. > > > The time signatures 8/20 and 9/8 *do* function identically: > > — the bottom number identifies the duration, *expressed as a fraction > > of a whole number*, that should be considered the functional division > > of the measure; > > And here is where your plan falls down because LilyPond's definition of > a duration does not agree with the words you are comfortable throwing > around because of your education. What you are thinking of is a Moment, > the unit in which the _length_ of a duration is expressed. There is no > 1:1 mapping between moments and durations: various different durations > may correspond to a single moment when involving scale factors, and lots > of moments don't have corresponding durations when you forego scale > factors. > > > — the top number identifies how many functional divisions are required > > to fill a complete measure. > > > > *By convention*, traditional classical music groups the 9 > > one-eighth-of-a-whole-note events into three groups of three each, > > leading people to say that the duration of a “beat” is equal (in that > > case) to three eighth notes. > > > > The time signature “9/8” does *not* (as you imply) actually convey > > *any* information about the number of “beats” — the *convention* does > > that. > > I am certain you will be able to provide a definite quote where I > "imply" any such thing. > So, are you claiming that this is a misquote? [David K:] > 8/20 does not specify more than the basic > subdivision for expressing beats (not necessarily identical with the > number of beats as signatures like 9/8 show) The feature request is to render 9/8 with an 8th note instead of the numeral 8 as the denominator. The feature request is to render 8/20 with a 16th note quintuplet note instead of the numeral 20 as the denominator. Why is the subdivision of the measure relevant? And how is the musical convention of 9/8 being 3 beats implied by the expression 9/8? > > I suppose Carl and my surprise (revelation?) is that Lilypond has > > *never* handled time signatures correctly (where “correct” means > > “according to the accepted definition of 'time signature'”). > > Nor has his ever handled durations correctly according to your > definition of "duration". Which means you should get a grip on what > LilyPond calls a duration before proposing to use it. > > -- > David Kastrup > So, are you defending incorrect semantics? The point is that the current implementation does not support the necessary semantics. So, you can whine about people not understanding how the implementation works, but if you want to be helpful, instead, please try to help us understand what the gap is so that others can work on figuring out how to address it. Until we know what's broken, we can't fix it. Also, the notion that the level of complexity being proposed is somehow problematic, seems misleading. Based on the fact that the function can actually take either one or two arguments, means that there is already some amount of logic based on detecting argument types. Suggesting that adding another such condition would be unfeasible is either untrue, or it means that the current approach is not scalable and is more of a hack. Elaine Alt 415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is highly underrated*" ela...@flaminghakama.com Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist ~ Educator -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: Need to remove links to lilypondblog.org
On Sun, Nov 14 2021 at 09:06:32 -0500, Paul Morris wrote: On 11/13/21 2:53 AM, Federico Bruni wrote: Paul, do you have a backup of lilypondblog.org? I might try converting it to a static site generator and host it on some free platform. Hi Federico, Thanks for your message. I'd like to help with this. Unfortunately, I don't have an up-to-date backup on my local machine. I tried logging into my shared hosting account and I can still access the WordPress database for the site. (I could export the database to something like JSON or other options, but I'm not sure that raw data is very useful.) I haven't confirmed but it looks like the domain has expired but the WordPress installation is still there. So what I'd like to try (when I can find time) is setting up a temporary subdomain somewhere and pointing it at the WordPress installation. If that works to let me log into the WP site, then I could use a plugin to do an "export to static html and css files" which could then be hosted somewhere or converted to a static site generator, etc. Where is the Wordpress installation? I thought it was on your personal server... My plan is using Hugo, which has some options to migrate a site written in Wordpress: https://gohugo.io/tools/migrations/#wordpress If it works, the lilypond blog may have a second life and accept new contributions using a git workflow.
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Le 14/11/2021 à 20:22, Kieren MacMillan a écrit : you should get a grip on what LilyPond calls a duration before proposing to use it. It's great that you show so much patience with rank beginners in LilyPond. Can we observe a one-day timeout on this to calm down please? Thanks in advance, Jean
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
So can we please try to avoid sarcasm and try to assume best intent on the respective other's side? Having met both of you, I am sure this assumption is actually quite reasonable. Sorry for hitting the limits of my English language skills: I wanted to say that I'm sure that the assumption of good intent is actually correct.
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
It's great that you show so much patience with rank beginners in LilyPond. Gentlemen, please. It's obvious and well-known that few people know LilyPond's design and inner workings as well as David, so if he raises concerns about a design question, it's a pretty safe bet that there's a bona fide issue at hand. But it's also obvious that LilyPond can only benefit from motivated development newcomers, especially in this case where the "newcomer" is actually a veteran power-user who knows the strengths and current limitations of LilyPond very well. So can we please try to avoid sarcasm and try to assume best intent on the respective other's side? Having met both of you, I am sure this assumption is actually quite reasonable. Lukas
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Hi David, > What you are thinking of is a Moment, the unit in which the _length_ of a > duration is expressed. Thanks for the clarification. Does passing a Moment as the denominator solve the issues you've raised about other proposals? > you should get a grip on what LilyPond calls a duration before proposing to > use it. It's great that you show so much patience with rank beginners in LilyPond. – Kieren
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Kieren MacMillan writes: > [David K:] >> 8/20 does not specify more than the basic >> subdivision for expressing beats (not necessarily identical with the >> number of beats as signatures like 9/8 show) > > Ah, I think I now see where your confusion lies. It's great that you show so much patience with rank beginners in LilyPond. > The time signatures 8/20 and 9/8 *do* function identically: > — the bottom number identifies the duration, *expressed as a fraction > of a whole number*, that should be considered the functional division > of the measure; And here is where your plan falls down because LilyPond's definition of a duration does not agree with the words you are comfortable throwing around because of your education. What you are thinking of is a Moment, the unit in which the _length_ of a duration is expressed. There is no 1:1 mapping between moments and durations: various different durations may correspond to a single moment when involving scale factors, and lots of moments don't have corresponding durations when you forego scale factors. > — the top number identifies how many functional divisions are required > to fill a complete measure. > > *By convention*, traditional classical music groups the 9 > one-eighth-of-a-whole-note events into three groups of three each, > leading people to say that the duration of a “beat” is equal (in that > case) to three eighth notes. > > The time signature “9/8” does *not* (as you imply) actually convey > *any* information about the number of “beats” — the *convention* does > that. I am certain you will be able to provide a definite quote where I "imply" any such thing. > I suppose Carl and my surprise (revelation?) is that Lilypond has > *never* handled time signatures correctly (where “correct” means > “according to the accepted definition of 'time signature'”). Nor has his ever handled durations correctly according to your definition of "duration". Which means you should get a grip on what LilyPond calls a duration before proposing to use it. -- David Kastrup
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Carl Sorensen writes: > On 11/14/21, 9:33 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote: > > Kieren MacMillan writes: > > > Hi David, > > > >> How is that uniquely identified? Why couldn't it be > > subscripted with 10 instead of 5? > > > > I suppose it could. It could also be subscripted with a π or a √2. I > > can’t stop people from doing what they want to do. > > > > Simultaneously true is the fact that the musical duration “one > > quintuplet-sixteenth” has one and only one visual representation, > > regardless of what Lilypond thinks or is told to do. > > Again you are evading the stated problem. The question was about the > representation of time signature 8/20, not about "one > quintuplet-sixteenth". 8/20 does not specify more than the basic > subdivision for expressing beats (not necessarily identical with the > number of beats as signatures like 9/8 show) and how much material fits > a bar. It does not identify how that material may be structured or > expressed, in opposition to your and Carl's statements about what > meaning the parts of a time signature are supposed to inherently have, > leading to a proposal of generally changing the current representation > by involving musical durations for the denominator. > > David, > > Do disagree with the statement that "The 20 on the bottom of the time > signature indicates a duration of 1/20 of a whole note"? In LilyPond terms, 1/20 of a whole note is not a duration. It can be a Moment. > If you disagree with this, what do you think the 20 on the bottom of > the time signature means? 1/20 of the length of a whole note. Which is not a duration as such in LilyPond and thus cannot be properly represented by one. -- David Kastrup
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
[David K:] > 8/20 does not specify more than the basic > subdivision for expressing beats (not necessarily identical with the > number of beats as signatures like 9/8 show) Ah, I think I now see where your confusion lies. The time signatures 8/20 and 9/8 *do* function identically: — the bottom number identifies the duration, *expressed as a fraction of a whole number*, that should be considered the functional division of the measure; — the top number identifies how many functional divisions are required to fill a complete measure. *By convention*, traditional classical music groups the 9 one-eighth-of-a-whole-note events into three groups of three each, leading people to say that the duration of a “beat” is equal (in that case) to three eighth notes. The time signature “9/8” does *not* (as you imply) actually convey *any* information about the number of “beats” — the *convention* does that. > It does not identify how that material may be structured or expressed Correct. That’s left up to beat-structure et al. — which is, I assume, why that portion of the time management code exists…? > in opposition to your and Carl's statements about what > meaning the parts of a time signature are supposed to inherently have I suppose Carl and my surprise (revelation?) is that Lilypond has *never* handled time signatures correctly (where “correct” means “according to the accepted definition of 'time signature'”). Cheers, Kieren.
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
> There is a difference between adding a feature and > obliterating existing semantics without replacement. I agree. > When the expression of the feature additionally not only lacks the ability > to express previously valid semantics but also lacks the ability > to distinguish between cases it is supposed to newly be able to express, > the design needs fixing rather than a vigorous defense. I agree. — Kieren
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
On 11/14/21, 9:33 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote: Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi David, > >> How is that uniquely identified? Why couldn't it be subscripted with 10 instead of 5? > > I suppose it could. It could also be subscripted with a π or a √2. I > can’t stop people from doing what they want to do. > > Simultaneously true is the fact that the musical duration “one > quintuplet-sixteenth” has one and only one visual representation, > regardless of what Lilypond thinks or is told to do. Again you are evading the stated problem. The question was about the representation of time signature 8/20, not about "one quintuplet-sixteenth". 8/20 does not specify more than the basic subdivision for expressing beats (not necessarily identical with the number of beats as signatures like 9/8 show) and how much material fits a bar. It does not identify how that material may be structured or expressed, in opposition to your and Carl's statements about what meaning the parts of a time signature are supposed to inherently have, leading to a proposal of generally changing the current representation by involving musical durations for the denominator. David, Do disagree with the statement that "The 20 on the bottom of the time signature indicates a duration of 1/20 of a whole note"? If you disagree with this, what do you think the 20 on the bottom of the time signature means? Carl -- David Kastrup
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Kieren MacMillan writes: > > >> Again you are evading the stated problem. The question was about the >> representation of time signature 8/20, not about "one >> quintuplet-sixteenth". 8/20 does not specify more than the basic >> subdivision for expressing beats (not necessarily identical with the >> number of beats as signatures like 9/8 show) and how much material >> fits a bar. It does not identify how that material may be structured >> or expressed, in opposition to your and Carl's statements about what >> meaning the parts of a time signature are supposed to inherently >> have, leading to a proposal of generally changing the current >> representation by involving musical durations for the denominator. > > Unless you have a concrete suggestion that you yourself would find > satisfactory, I guess it’s fortunate for everyone that I’ve been > browbeaten into abandoning my pursuit of this feature. There is a difference between adding a feature and obliterating existing semantics without replacement. When the expression of the feature additionally not only lacks the ability to express previously valid semantics but also lacks the ability to distinguish between cases it is supposed to newly be able to express, the design needs fixing rather than a vigorous defense. Of course pointing that out makes me the bad guy standing in the way of progress. -- David Kastrup
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
> Again you are evading the stated problem. The question was about the > representation of time signature 8/20, not about "one > quintuplet-sixteenth". 8/20 does not specify more than the basic > subdivision for expressing beats (not necessarily identical with the > number of beats as signatures like 9/8 show) and how much material fits > a bar. It does not identify how that material may be structured or > expressed, in opposition to your and Carl's statements about what > meaning the parts of a time signature are supposed to inherently have, > leading to a proposal of generally changing the current representation > by involving musical durations for the denominator. Unless you have a concrete suggestion that you yourself would find satisfactory, I guess it’s fortunate for everyone that I’ve been browbeaten into abandoning my pursuit of this feature. Cheers, Kieren.
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi David, > >> How is that uniquely identified? Why couldn't it be subscripted with 10 >> instead of 5? > > I suppose it could. It could also be subscripted with a π or a √2. I > can’t stop people from doing what they want to do. > > Simultaneously true is the fact that the musical duration “one > quintuplet-sixteenth” has one and only one visual representation, > regardless of what Lilypond thinks or is told to do. Again you are evading the stated problem. The question was about the representation of time signature 8/20, not about "one quintuplet-sixteenth". 8/20 does not specify more than the basic subdivision for expressing beats (not necessarily identical with the number of beats as signatures like 9/8 show) and how much material fits a bar. It does not identify how that material may be structured or expressed, in opposition to your and Carl's statements about what meaning the parts of a time signature are supposed to inherently have, leading to a proposal of generally changing the current representation by involving musical durations for the denominator. -- David Kastrup
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Hi David, > How is that uniquely identified? Why couldn't it be subscripted with 10 > instead of 5? I suppose it could. It could also be subscripted with a π or a √2. I can’t stop people from doing what they want to do. Simultaneously true is the fact that the musical duration “one quintuplet-sixteenth” has one and only one visual representation, regardless of what Lilypond thinks or is told to do. Best regards, Kieren.
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi all, > > On Nov 14, 2021, at 9:00 AM, Kieren MacMillan > wrote: > > There just is no uniquely identified print form using a note in the > > denominator for that time signature representation. > > As I’ve explained several times, there is. > > Here’s a screenshot for anyone who can’t envision the uniquely identified > print form of 8/20 using a > note in the denominator: > * How is that uniquely identified? Why couldn't it be subscripted with 10 instead of 5? -- David Kastrup
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator [ABANDONED]
Hi all, I’m giving up. Thanks for the discussion on this feature. I’ll submit a patch for the two new TimeSignature styles — using only those denominators currently accepted by Lilypond — and move on. — Kieren
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Hi David, > Are you sure you mean triplet eights? I’ve played a piece by Adés with a 2/6 > time signature in places and the note I would expect in the denominator would > be a quarter note with a triplet bracket as the notes printed as quarters > were the same value as quarter note triplets due to them being a sixth of a > while note. Yes, my error: tuplet quarters is correct. Thanks for the correction! Fortunately, my logic of the way in which a note-denom glyph corresponds *uniquely* to the correct note value isn’t ruined by that slip on my part in that specific case. =) Cheers, Kieren.
Re: make all fails (help2man cannot find info for lilypond because lilypond cannot find libguile.so.17)
On 2021-11-14 2:04 am, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 7:03 AM Aaron Hill wrote: NOTE: Manually specifying the library path... /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 \ --library-path /opt/guile-1.8/lib/ \ out/bin/lilypond --version ...works and reports "GNU LilyPond 2.23.5 (running Guile 1.8)". As such, the build process seems to be pretty close to working. But by the time help2man needs to run, the library path information is lost. have you tried setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH to the directory containing the .so for the locally built guile? Thanks, Han-Wen. It looks like the email I tried to send about an hour after my other one did not make it through. In it, I would have mentioned that I was able to get 'make all' to finish precisely as you have recommended. I had read a little more about LD_LIBRARY_PATH and found that on Ubuntu /etc/ld.so.conf.d is apparently the recommended way. I created an entry there for my custom guile 1.8 build and ran 'sudo ldconfig'. Initially I was concerned about making such a "global" change, but it appears that the release builds of lilypond continue to use their own bundled libraries. But that raises a question: How is it the lilypond executables that ship with the .sh installation scripts do not need anything special with regards to libraries? When I ldd them, they appear to have a baked-in path to the libs that ship with lilypond. Is that something special that is done when preparing a release? -- Aaron Hill
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Kieran, - Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi Lukas, > > > When Thomas Adès switches from 4/4 to 4/5, there is no way of knowing which > > "graphical" note length (combination of notehead style and flag count) is > > supposed to be used for the basic unit (of which 4 make up a bar, and of > > which five equal the duration of a semibreve). > > When someone writes a [numeric] time signature 4/4 — with four “naked” > quarter notes in the measure completely filling up that measure — the > performer can work out that 4 represents a quarter-note duration. Replacing > the numeric denominator "4" with a quarter-note glyph conveys exactly that > information. > > When someone writes a [numeric] time signature 2/6 — with two “naked” quarter > notes in the measure completely filling up that measure — the performer can > work out that 6 is “halfway between 4 and 8”, and thus represents a > triplet-eighth-note duration. Replacing the numeric denominator "6" with a > triplet-eighth-note glyph conveys exactly that information. > Are you sure you mean triplet eights? I’ve played a piece by Adés with a 2/6 time signature in places and the note I would expect in the denominator would be a quarter note with a triplet bracket as the notes printed as quarters were the same value as quarter note triplets due to them being a sixth of a while note. -David > Both of these situations reflect exactly the accepted definition of time > signature: “how many beats (pulses) are contained in each measure (bar), and > which note value is equivalent to a beat”. > > Please explain the flaw in my logic, because it seems perfectly clear to me > both in my text description(s) and in that snippet I sent earlier. > > Thanks, > Kieren.
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Hi Lukas, > Which one of those bars is more natural than the other, and why? That question has a more specific answer: According to Gould, one of them is not just “more natural” but *correct*, and the other is not just “less natural” but *incorrect*. ;) When dividing any note duration, there is a specific formula when to move from one sub-duration to the next smaller sub-duration (e.g. in tuplets of varying number). Those rules, of course, apply equally to the note-glyph used in the denominator of a time signature. Naturally, Lilypond can’t force someone to use the “correct” engraving — but that doesn’t change the fact that there are clear rules as to how to properly engrave such things! Cheers, Kieren.
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Hi Lukas, > When Thomas Adès switches from 4/4 to 4/5, there is no way of knowing which > "graphical" note length (combination of notehead style and flag count) is > supposed to be used for the basic unit (of which 4 make up a bar, and of > which five equal the duration of a semibreve). When someone writes a [numeric] time signature 4/4 — with four “naked” quarter notes in the measure completely filling up that measure — the performer can work out that 4 represents a quarter-note duration. Replacing the numeric denominator "4" with a quarter-note glyph conveys exactly that information. When someone writes a [numeric] time signature 2/6 — with two “naked” quarter notes in the measure completely filling up that measure — the performer can work out that 6 is “halfway between 4 and 8”, and thus represents a triplet-eighth-note duration. Replacing the numeric denominator "6" with a triplet-eighth-note glyph conveys exactly that information. Both of these situations reflect exactly the accepted definition of time signature: “how many beats (pulses) are contained in each measure (bar), and which note value is equivalent to a beat”. Please explain the flaw in my logic, because it seems perfectly clear to me both in my text description(s) and in that snippet I sent earlier. Thanks, Kieren.
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
When Thomas Adès switches from 4/4 to 4/5, there is no way of knowing
which "graphical" note length (combination of notehead style and flag
count) is supposed to be used for the basic unit (of which 4 make up a
bar, and of which five equal the duration of a semibreve).
Example:
\version "2.22"
\relative {
\time 4/5
c'4*4/5 c c c
\time 4/5
c'8*8/5 c c c
}
Which one of those bars is more natural than the other, and why?
If you're tempted to answer "the first one, since 1/5 is very close to
1/4 and should therefore be represented by crotchets", then what about
the following?
\version "2.22"
\relative {
\time 4/6
c'4*4/6 c c c
\time 4/6
c'8*8/6 c c c
}
(BTW, there's a "strange time signature" warning, but only for the
second \time in each of the examples. This seems to be a bug.)
Lukas
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Hi Kieren, Am 14.11.21 um 15:00 schrieb Kieren MacMillan: There just is no uniquely identified print form using a note in the denominator for that time signature representation. As I’ve explained several times, there is. I don't think you're right. It's well possible that I'm missing the point completely, but here's my take: When Thomas Adès switches from 4/4 to 4/5, there is no way of knowing which "graphical" note length (combination of notehead style and flag count) is supposed to be used for the basic unit (of which 4 make up a bar, and of which five equal the duration of a semibreve). In written scores, that's not a problem: You can just count in a printed bar to find out what X is in "four X's make up a bar", and in the Adès scores I have seen, it was usually X = crotchet. But there's no way of knowing that beforehand. That problem always bugged me with this style of notation. Lukas
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
…and here’s a quick Lilypond example showing the incredible usefulness and
flexibility of the note-denom form of TimeSignature (as well as showing off
Lilypond’s fabulous handling of music timing):
%%% SNIPPET BEGINS
\version "2.23.4"
\layout { indent = 0 }
seventwentiethtime = \markup {
\override #'(baseline-skip . 0)
\column {
\line { \number "7" }
\translate #'(-1.9 . 0) \line { \score { << \omit Score.TimeSignature \new
RhythmicStaff \with { \override StaffSymbol.line-count = 0 } \magnifyMusic #5/6
{ \stemDown \tweak TupletNumber.extra-offset #'(0.25 . 0.25) \tuplet 5/4 { c'16
} } >> } }
}
}
{
\time 4/4
\repeat unfold 8 { c'16 } \tuplet 5/4 4 { \repeat unfold 10 { c'16 } }
\override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil = #ly:text-interface::print
\override Staff.TimeSignature.text = #seventwentiethtime
\time #'(3 4) 7/20
\repeat unfold 14 { c'16*4/5 }
\bar"|."
}
%%% SNIPPET ENDS
I cannot personally envision how this music would be engraved **with exactly
the same immediate [essentially sight-readable] clarity** using “regular” time
signatures.
Hope that helps!
Kieren.
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
…and here’s a quick Lilypond example showing the incredible usefulness and
flexibility of the note-denom form of TimeSignature (as well as showing off
Lilypond’s fabulous handling of music timing):
%%% SNIPPET BEGINS
\version "2.23.4"
\layout { indent = 0 }
seventwentiethtime = \markup {
\override #'(baseline-skip . 0)
\column {
\line { \number "7" }
\translate #'(-1.9 . 0) \line { \score { << \omit Score.TimeSignature \new
RhythmicStaff \with { \override StaffSymbol.line-count = 0 } \magnifyMusic #5/6
{ \stemDown \tweak TupletNumber.extra-offset #'(0.25 . 0.25) \tuplet 5/4 { c'16
} } >> } }
}
}
%
% Some sample music
%
{
\time 4/4
\repeat unfold 8 { c'16 } \tuplet 5/4 4 { \repeat unfold 10 { c'16 } }
\override Staff.TimeSignature.stencil = #ly:text-interface::print
\override Staff.TimeSignature.text = #seventwentiethtime
\time #'(3 4) 7/20
\repeat unfold 14 { c'16*4/5 }
\bar"|."
}
%%% SNIPPET ENDS
I cannot personally envision how this music can be engraved **with exactly the
same immediate [essentially sight-readable] clarity** using “regular” time
signatures.
Hope that helps!
Kieren.
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Hi all, On Nov 14, 2021, at 9:00 AM, Kieren MacMillan mailto:kie...@kierenmacmillan.info>> wrote: >> There just is no uniquely identified print form using a note in the >> denominator for that time signature representation. > As I’ve explained several times, there is. Here’s a screenshot for anyone who can’t envision the uniquely identified print form of 8/20 using a note in the denominator: Hope that helps! Kieren.
Re: Need to remove links to lilypondblog.org
On 11/13/21 2:53 AM, Federico Bruni wrote: Paul, do you have a backup of lilypondblog.org? I might try converting it to a static site generator and host it on some free platform. Hi Federico, Thanks for your message. I'd like to help with this. Unfortunately, I don't have an up-to-date backup on my local machine. I tried logging into my shared hosting account and I can still access the WordPress database for the site. (I could export the database to something like JSON or other options, but I'm not sure that raw data is very useful.) I haven't confirmed but it looks like the domain has expired but the WordPress installation is still there. So what I'd like to try (when I can find time) is setting up a temporary subdomain somewhere and pointing it at the WordPress installation. If that works to let me log into the WP site, then I could use a plugin to do an "export to static html and css files" which could then be hosted somewhere or converted to a static site generator, etc. -Paul
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi David, > >> There just is no uniquely identified print form using a note in the >> denominator for that time signature representation. > > As I’ve explained several times, there is. Give it for 8/20 then. -- David Kastrup
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Hi David, > There just is no uniquely identified print form using a note in the > denominator for that time signature representation. As I’ve explained several times, there is. > That makes that representation unable to adequately reflect existing music No, it completely reflects existing music: Every time signature that Lilypond can currently handle can be represented by what I’ve proposed. Cheers, Kieren.
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi David, > >> There is no either of those. They are identical. You cannot >> distinguish a 5-tuplet from a 10-tuplet in that representation. > > Please explain why I need to, specifically in the context of a > note-denominator time signature — because it’s not at all clear to me > that I need to. > >> The problem is that there is no >> unique representation as a LilyPond duration for print forms >> representing 1/20th of a whole note > > Please explain why there needs to be, specifically in the context of a > note-denominator time signature — because it’s not at all clear to me > that there needs to be. > >> The problem is that handwaving looks great in discussions but does not >> deliver a definition useful for implementation. > > Please explain why you think me saying I’ll accept (ly:make-duration 4 > 0 4/5) as the input, specifically in the context of a note-denominator > time signature, is “handwaving” — because it’s not at all clear to me > how that’s true. There just is no uniquely identified print form using a note in the denominator for that time signature representation. That makes that representation unable to adequately reflect existing music while at the same time being considerably more complex. You consider both the added complexity as well as ditching the ability of others to represent _their_ music an adequate sacrifice for gaining -- what exactly? -- David Kastrup
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Hi David, > There is no either of those. They are identical. You cannot > distinguish a 5-tuplet from a 10-tuplet in that representation. Please explain why I need to, specifically in the context of a note-denominator time signature — because it’s not at all clear to me that I need to. > The problem is that there is no > unique representation as a LilyPond duration for print forms > representing 1/20th of a whole note Please explain why there needs to be, specifically in the context of a note-denominator time signature — because it’s not at all clear to me that there needs to be. > The problem is that handwaving looks great in discussions but does not > deliver a definition useful for implementation. Please explain why you think me saying I’ll accept (ly:make-duration 4 0 4/5) as the input, specifically in the context of a note-denominator time signature, is “handwaving” — because it’s not at all clear to me how that’s true. Thanks, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his) ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info
Re: make all fails (help2man cannot find info for lilypond because lilypond cannot find libguile.so.17)
On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 7:03 AM Aaron Hill wrote: > NOTE: Manually specifying the library path... > > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 \ >--library-path /opt/guile-1.8/lib/ \ >out/bin/lilypond --version > > ...works and reports "GNU LilyPond 2.23.5 (running Guile 1.8)". As > such, the build process seems to be pretty close to working. But by the > time help2man needs to run, the library path information is lost. have you tried setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH to the directory containing the .so for the locally built guile? -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanw...@gmail.com - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Carl Sorensen writes: > On 11/13/21, 4:05 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote: > > Kieren MacMillan writes: > > > Hi David, > > > >> It doesn't answer the question. > > > > Did my explicit answer in the other email (i.e., “one > > quintuplet-sixteenth-note”) not suffice? > > No. You propose replacing (cons 3 4) as a time signature designation > with (cons 3 (ly:make-duration 2)). You have failed to give any > indication of what you want to see (cons 8 20) replaced with. > > What if the time signature description were (cons 3 '(2 0 1/1)) or > '((rep 3) (dur_param (2 0 1/1))? > > LilyPond does not have something like a 1/20th duration. Regarding > durations, what occurs inside of \tuplet 5/4 and \tuplet 10/8 is > completely indistinguishable: "tupletism" is not a part of durations. > > So I repeat: what duration in LilyPond do you want to use to represent > the denominator in 8/20 ? 1/20th here is neither a 5-tuplet nor a > 10-tuplet: it represents a fraction of a whole note, not a particular of > several possible note values. > > It will likely end up as (ly:make-duration 4 0 4/5) but that has no > unique printed representation different from (ly:make-duration 4), and > (ly:make-duration 4 0 4/5) and (ly:make-duration 4 0 8/10) are > absolutely indistinguishable. > > The alist I proposed above would be able to distinguish between 4/5 > and 8/10. No it wouldn't. Scheme does not distinguish 4/5 and 8/10 . And neither does the composer using a time signature of 8/20 whether this suits your theories about what time signatures "really" are or not. 8/20 conveys more information than a proper fraction (which would be 2/5) but less than 8 times a particular note duration expressed as a specific kind of tuplet. It's 8 times 1/20 without detailing how that 1/20 is constituted. > I don't know if it's a good idea, but it is an idea. -- David Kastrup
Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi David, > >> No. You propose replacing (cons 3 4) as a time signature designation >> with (cons 3 (ly:make-duration 2)). You have failed to give any >> indication of what you want to see (cons 8 20) replaced with. > > Well at least now you’ve asked the question you clearly meant to ask > earlier, in a way that someone other than you can figure out how to > answer in the way you’re expecting. =) > >> It will likely end up as (ly:make-duration 4 0 4/5) > > That seems fine to me. > >> but that has no unique printed representation different from >> (ly:make-duration 4) > > Correction: Lilypond doesn’t, by default, give a “unique printed > representation” to (ly:make-duration 4 0 4/5) as compared with > (ly:make-duration 4). On the other hand, I am fully capable of making > Lilypond do so, i.e., formatting the denominator as a sixteenth note > *with a '5' [possibly in a bracket] below it*, which absolutely *is* a > “unique printed representation”, and will convey to the performer > exactly the desired meaning. > >> (ly:make-duration 4 0 4/5) and (ly:make-duration 4 0 8/10) >> are absolutely indistinguishable. > > I can do the math to back-calc either of those into a note duration in > order to determine. There is no either of those. They are identical. You cannot distinguish a 5-tuplet from a 10-tuplet in that representation. > So I guess here’s my [final] answer to your question: I’d like to see > (cons 8 20) replaced with whatever is easiest for the lexer / parser > to convert to and from and/or pass through to the time function(s) > without losing any critical information about the denominator > duration. You are just evading the question. The problem is that there is no unique representation as a LilyPond duration for print forms representing 1/20th of a whole note, and you and Carl are glossing over the fact that the time signature 8/20 does not actually specify such a duration but does, contrary to your theories, indicates 1/20 of a whole note as the unit without specifying _how_ this unit is actually musically established in terms of durations. > Feel free to ask me for yet another answer to this question… but be > warned that I don’t know enough about the lexer or parser or > Lilypond’s internal representation of durations to give a more > specific or nuanced or helpful answer than that. ;) The problem is that handwaving looks great in discussions but does not deliver a definition useful for implementation. -- David Kastrup
