On 08/01/14 19:40, Yann wrote:
With hg, each clone of a repository IS a complete repository itself. So your
working copy is a repository itself (the main folder just contains a hidden
.hg folder with all the history data). I feel this is an advantage over svn when
working locally, as your data
On 08/01/14 21:13, David Kastrup wrote:
Actually, that seems like a mischaracterization to me. It's the single
file logs which aren't cheaper than the multi-file logs.
You could be right. In any case, the Facebook devs are claiming wins for all
change-related commands, including status,
On 07/01/14 14:51, Urs Liska wrote:
I don't think it would be advisable to encourage any _new_ user to learn SVN or
CVS (if it isn't for a specific project of interest), but for your use case this
is surely a valid question.
One way in which svn can still be useful is in cases where you want
On 08/12/13 22:42, Janek Warchoł wrote:
My experience says otherwise (maybe because my choir is not
professional): we continued to sing this moment badly for the next 5
years.
Well, then your complaint is certainly valid! :-)
I have seen it about 10 times already, in scores coming from
On 06/12/13 00:47, Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote:
Since I am not a programmer, I am not sure why, yet when I double click a
.ly file in Windows 7 Frescobaldi opens (rapidly) and displays the code.
I would imagine that when you install Frescobaldi, it updates the Windows file
config such that
On 06/12/13 23:37, Janek Warchoł wrote:
Well, i'm not familiar with this area, but keep in mind that one has
to find a free, open-source solution that works for every platform we
support (Win, Mac, various Unixes) and can be automated. It's not
enough to go and create one installer - we need
On 07/12/13 16:49, Janek Warchoł wrote:
you're probably right. as i said, i don't know this stuff.
Well, in this case I think it's not about what you know -- it's about what you
think is best to do. If it turns out that the easiest way to organize things is
to have one install bundle for
On 07/12/13 16:52, David Kastrup wrote:
The last time I thought that was when I wanted to compare how much worse
Emacs fared when using it for working on LaTeX files compared to a
specialized simple text editor called Kile or something.
Emacs hit in at over 16MB with my current work session
On 07/12/13 17:14, Phil Holmes wrote:
I've already said I oppose this, and I'll restate this.
I think it's unfortunate that your opposition consists of just saying no,
rather than trying to work out if there are ways to get what you want _and_ get
what other people are suggesting.
For
On 07/12/13 17:55, Phil Holmes wrote:
Patches welcome.
Should I take that as conceding the argument in principle? :-)
I know it's frustrating to see so much discussion and no code, but one reason
people discuss so much is because they want to make sure there is a solution
that will satisfy
On 07/12/13 18:07, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Beethoven's 104 Piano Sonatas
That would be 32 :-) But 104 separate movements in total ...
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
On 07/12/13 19:18, Janek Warchoł wrote:
Have you looked at Eja Mater awful Finale.pdf? Do you consider the
issues marked in red minor? They actually make it very difficult to
On 07/12/13 19:39, SoundsFromSound wrote:
I could assist with Finale 2014 though I hesitate to call myself an 'expert'
in Finale. Power user maybe, but no expert. Does that help?
I think that power user would be fine for the kind of test run I proposed. I
mean, so long as you don't let your
On 07/12/13 20:05, Urs Liska wrote:
I have to throw in a comparison:
http://lilypond.ursliska.de/uploads/pics/07_02.png
http://lilypond.ursliska.de/uploads/pics/finale2008_one-system.png
These are an excerpt from a copyright piece, but I've got permission to display
in the context of a tutorial
On 07/12/13 19:54, Urs Liska wrote:
But once we're going to compete with people from other tools' mailing lists it
will probably become a real (and therefore less informative) competition.
Well, if you couch it in terms along the lines of, Hey, we're just trying to
improve our software here,
On 07/12/13 20:21, Urs Liska wrote:
I think fixing the Finale part (reliably) will be much more problematic, at
least
with this kind of music where the complexity leads to that amount of
catastrophic results as in the Finale version.
That's why you want to run the test, to see if a good and
On 05/12/13 21:18, Janek Warchoł wrote:
as promised, here are engraving comparisons that i hand out to musicians i meet:
What Finale version are you using to generate these examples?
I hate to say this, but from my point of view (as a Lilypond user and
enthusiast) I think that rather than
On 06/12/13 20:02, Urs Liska wrote:
Some more aspects to this: How reliably can these faults be fixed? What happens
to the fixes if you screw up with a tweak. What if the layout changes because of
corrections or a different paper format? How can someone else fix issues in a
score? etc. etc.
On 04/12/13 19:02, Phil Holmes wrote:
For me, I'd say that we should not install Frescobaldi as a pre-requisite of
running Lily on Windows. I'm a heavy Windows user, and would not want another
program installed by default. I've not used it, but I do understand that many
people feel it's
On 03/12/13 22:47, David Kastrup wrote:
You are aware that the Sibelius development team has been laid off due
to financial problems of their parent company in spite of Sibelius
having a paying market and turning a profit?
Yes, fully. But there is still _a_ Sibelius development team, there is
On 04/12/13 10:33, David Kastrup wrote:
Uh, the original developers of Sibelius made Avid an offer for buying
Sibelius back. The offer was turned down.
Happy to have this discussion if you want it, but I think it's getting away from
the point I wanted to make.
It's simply that I don't see
On 04/12/13 11:18, David Kastrup wrote:
It's not really a discussion: I am just reiterating points already made
a lot of times with regard to Free Software. Corporate parents can
easily become a liability rather than an asset, and when that happens,
you are powerless as a user.
Yes, I'm very
On 02/12/13 22:20, David Kastrup wrote:
Scheme _is_ its scripting language.
How much scope is there for creating a stable scripting API which could be
used via Scheme (default) or any arbitrary language of choice, so long as
someone writes bindings for that language?
I ask because in our
On 02/12/13 16:00, David Kastrup wrote:
How about companies which cannot risk getting locked in to software that
may stop being maintained in future?
I'm not sure that's a selling point, either. As long as there's a paying
market, commercial software tends to keep getting maintained. By
On 01/12/13 15:09, immanuel litzroth wrote:
1) I don't seem to run into many of these problems with lilypond and I do
transcriptions of small ensembles *and* export all
the voices separately (that's including drums) -- I almost never have to clean
up for readability issues, and don't have the
On 30/11/13 21:40, David Kastrup wrote:
The backend is much less coherent, so expertise is harder to acquire,
people tend to work with partial knowledge, and progress is a lot more
fragile. We need to get those four months down, and yes, a shouting
match is not going to help. What will help is
On 01/12/13 09:45, David Kastrup wrote:
Finale output is ugly to the degree where it is distracting readability,
particularly for instrumentalists. Sibelius' corporate parent has fired
its core developer team in the UK, including its original authors.
Steinberg does not yet have a finished
On 01/12/13 12:49, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't think this sort of preplanning works out well. Mostly it just
leads to people going away until the stuff they are not interested in is
done. We need to figure out better ways to work on parallel and partly
conflicting goals.
Yes, I guess that's
On 01/12/13 14:00, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
I disagree somewhat… and so do most of my Finale- and Sibelius-using friends
and colleagues, who complain endlessly about how much time it takes to tweak
scores and parts.
How does that compare to their reaction to Lilypond? I would guess amazement
On 01/12/13 14:13, immanuel litzroth wrote:
I follow a music education program that requires me to play in a combo 1 hour a
week. The scores there are prepared
by paid professionals, usually in Sibelius. They are invariably late, and
usually unreadable when they arrive.
Chords on top of each
On 01/12/13 14:56, immanuel litzroth wrote:
Here's a nice example.
That's almost certainly someone writing to full score (which has particular
spacing properties) and auto-exporting to parts without ever actually looking at
them. Surprise to surprise, the horizontal spacing issues are
agree with you that the use of these combinations of Unicode glyphs
does not seem to work well (I tried out a few different fonts in LibreOffice
just to compare and contrast; uck).
2013/11/29 Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net:
Actually, I wonder if rather than special glyphs
On 30/11/13 12:30, Janek Warchoł wrote:
We'll see how to split the amount between sponsors when i'm finished -
i originally intended to do just flat, natural and sharp, so doing all
microtonal accidentals may take me extra time.
Why don't we split the task? Regular accidentals first as a
On 13/09/13 05:54, Curt wrote:
- Hairpins are surprisingly difficult. Most instruments do not have a natural
decay, so hairpins don't necessarily start or end right at the note
boundaries. It's necessary to use fake voices in these cases. Even
with this, it didn't
On 29/11/13 15:34, Janek Warchoł wrote:
What do you think about \at function that David wrote?
(see snippet here
https://github.com/openlilylib/snippets/tree/master/input-shorthands/articulations-not-aligned-with-notes)
The syntax is a bit awkward, but this function already does exactly
what we
On 29/11/13 15:45, David Kastrup wrote:
Why not use the Unicode charpoints, like B♭, F♯ and so on? They are
_supposed_ to go well with the text font and kern properly.
Should fit nicely with the idea of a \textPitch function I floated in the other
email. Are there any
On 26/11/13 11:01, David Kastrup wrote:
Sure. For that reason, I consider much of the time spent on tweaking
and tweaking tools a waste of lifetime better spent on trying to get the
automatisms right. Of course, that option is harder and requires
different resources. But it only needs to be
On 14/11/13 11:16, Jan-Peter Voigt wrote:
there is a snippet in LSR:
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=336
which did this for a long time.
Please note that multi-measure rests are not automatically combined.
In addition, it hardly matches the ease of the Sibelius/Finale features if the
On 14/11/13 15:05, Jan-Peter Voigt wrote:
there is an update of this snippet in the mail archives and I will post
my version later.
Fantastic, thank you! :-)
You're right, but I would take this as a proposal to add this as a
standard command to lily.
Yes, I agree. In fact for optimal
On 05/11/13 07:44, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Please submit this snippet to the LSR!
He can't, it's the actual beginning of Ferneyhough's score and so under
copyright.
The notation is cool, though, and I'm sure it's easy to come up with a similar
example that is original.
On 06/11/13 18:55, David Kastrup wrote:
That would be the case even if Ferneyhough were not British to start
with.
Your other points are fine, but what's Ferneyhough's nationality got to do with
it?
FWIW, he's been resident in the US for 25+ years now, and his publisher is
German ...
On 06/11/13 17:06, Urs Liska wrote:
Really?
From my experience publishers don't have/make problems with giving a free
licence to use such an excerpt for such a purpose.
IIRC stuff in the LSR is supposed to be dedicated to the public domain, and
there's no way I can see to do that.
Anyway,
On 04/11/13 08:56, David Kastrup wrote:
Ugh. Why not
#(define-music-function (parser location p1 p2 m)
(ly:pitch? ly:pitch? ly:music?) m)
Thanks for the improved version! I'm not exactly fluent in Scheme -- combine
that with needing to work out which of Lilypond's variable types to use,
Hello all,
Is there a quick and easy way of disabling transposition (i.e. the effects of
both \transpose and \transposition commands) for an entire Staff, StaffGroup or
Score?
Thanks best wishes,
-- Joe
___
lilypond-user mailing list
On 03/11/13 16:55, Urs Liska wrote:
Does it work if you redefine it with
transpose = {}
?
Nope. Remember that transposition statements are things like:
\transpose bf c' { ... }
and
\transposition bf
So, if you just define transpose and transposition as empty music, Lilypond will
On 04/11/13 00:05, Jim Long wrote:
I'm not sure that this suggestion meets any of your criteria
(especially \transposition), but:
\version 2.17.26
music = \new Staff \relative e' { e b' g b, e1 }
unTmusic = \withMusicProperty #'untransposable ##t \music
\score {
\transpose e f
On 03/11/13 17:44, Urs Liska wrote:
But you should be able to define a music function that simply prints the music
it is passed. Use parameters for the two pitches and ignore them.
Can't try out because I'm on the phone, but you should be able to go that way.
Ahh, of course. Here's what I
On 06/09/13 17:26, Kale Good wrote:
Hello all,
I haven't had a chance to do a serious proof read of this yet; I wanted to do it
today but some other work came up, so I'm sending it out more than a little
unfinished. All the notes and fingerings are there (or should be), but I haven't
tweaked
On 04/24/2013 04:36 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
Another common option is simply indicating 'vib.', 'senza vib.', 'molto vib.'
Depends how precise a visual indicator you want to have of the type of vibrato,
particularly with respect to precise indication of the 'vertical' extent (i.e.
the range of
On 04/09/2013 06:26 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
When I used Finale one had to draw a rectangle with the mouse that then was
exported.
Needless to say that this is a poor way to consistently line up music
fragments
in a text document.
I doubt this is the way a hardcore professional engraving person
On 04/07/2013 09:23 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
Have you tried with LilyPond PDFs? I think they tend to compress on the
object level which _might_ work reasonably with some of git's packing
techniques.
No. I did take a look inside them before writing my previous email -- they
certainly have
On 04/07/2013 06:51 PM, Stjepan Horvat wrote:
I realy like git too..Once i tried to make my own git server on my private
web-server so when i finish the work i can send the customer his pdf folder
link..but..that didnt work becouse you cant see actual files on git web
server..like you can on
On 04/06/2013 10:50 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
The things is, use git for tracking source files, not pdfs. If you
put \version statements in all your .ly files, you can always recreate
a pdf with appropriate LilyPond version.
Actually, it might make sense to track some pdfs as well, but i'd
On 04/04/2013 02:50 PM, Alexander Kobel wrote:
Then, everybody is free to use my-app.C constraint to my terms, since they
are
imposed on this very file. However, nobody would be allowed to use /GSL/ to
compile this program, because GPL considers my-app.C a covered work
/whenever
used with
On 04/03/2013 01:08 PM, Wols Lists wrote:
Dare I suggest you look at section zero? The second paragraph of which
says, and I quote:
You're talking about GPL version 2, not GPL version 3.
Compare:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
... where the second paragraph of Section 0 is exactly
On 03/29/2013 10:39 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
First of all, I think we have quite a consensus on what we intend - which is
a good start.
Yup. :-)
I slightly disagree, although your considerations are valuable and give some
good insights in the situation.
I think the 'ambiguity' Joe is talking
On 03/29/2013 11:26 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
but aside from that I think there are
probably several other ways in which it could be done, including ensuring
that
all files intended to be \include'd
On 03/30/2013 01:02 AM, Alexander Kobel wrote:
On the other hand, user C /should/ be allowed to distribute source code under
whatever license he wants to /as long as he doesn't ship the GPL libraries
with
it./ It's useless without them, but anybody who wants to run or compile the
code is
On 04/02/2013 03:52 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
The main difference is work as a whole vs mere aggregation. If you
include some file as a form of invoking its documented interface, you
form no new combined work.
Indeed, which if I recall right is how Google was able to provide non-GPL'd
header
On 04/02/2013 05:07 PM, Alexander Kobel wrote:
This certainly applies to compiled code, with the GPL'ed library statically
linked, and also (I stand corrected) with dynamic linkage, AFAIU. I still
cannot see how it /could/ possibly apply to source code:
Well, the examples you cite consider a
On 04/02/2013 07:07 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
My suggestion would be to either have a sort of lilypond license or
(better) an explicit exception/clarification stating that the use of
functions defined in the LilyPond distribution (either implicit or through an
explicit include) do not require
On 04/02/2013 07:33 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
If I do not copy the actual file into my .ly file but only have the \include
statement, I have not violated copyright. It would be up to any subsequent
user to obtain the copyrighted Bob Jones file to use with \include or to come
up with a
On 04/02/2013 08:53 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
LilyPond is a GNU program and so follows the licensing policies of the
GNU project.
Sure, but I don't see that this prevents you from making a permissive licensing
choice for parts of your program where this is appropriate -- I imagine the GNU
On 04/02/2013 09:50 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Apr 2, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
But now suppose that bobjones.ly defines a number of new functions, \bobFoo,
\bobBar, etc., and that you use them on a number of occasions throughout your
own .ly file. Is the issue so
On 04/02/2013 10:33 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Since I can't share your concerns, I can't give you any advice what to
ask the SFLC in order to address them. That's quite up to you.
Fair enough. I was concerned that you might actively disapprove of my doing so,
in which case I'd have wanted to
On 04/02/2013 11:17 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
So as long as Google stuck to using interfaces that the kernel devs explicitly
published to user space, then using those header files EXPLICITLY does NOT
create a derivative work, and therefore the GPL can NOT cross that boundary.
That's exactly
On 04/02/2013 11:28 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
A derivative work is whatever the LAW says it is (whatever that is :-). NO
open
source licence defines the term derivative work, although they may give
their
own interpretation of what they think it is.
The actual GPL term is a covered work,
On 04/02/2013 11:25 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Uh, so far I have just seen fantasizing about TeX users having similar
concerns.
I did post a link before:
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/69007/the-gpl-and-latex-packages
Sure, it's not a huge wellspring of concern, but as you say, that's
On 04/03/2013 12:01 AM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
But as I understand it, the lawsuit as actually sued said apis are copyright
and you would have needed a licence to use the apis - to use Oracle's Java.
That's exactly in line with what David said. Google were providing a clean-room
On 04/02/2013 11:57 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:47, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Indeed, and a consequence of distributing a covered work under
GPL-incompatible terms is that you lose the permissions granted under that
license.
EXCEPT EXCEPT EXCEPT THE LAW SAYS YOU *DON'T
On 04/02/2013 11:38 PM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
On 02/04/2013 22:01, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
(Function names and APIs are generally considered to be uncopyrightable.)
However, I think the consensus of opinion about free software licensing would
be that, in distributing to you this little
On 04/03/2013 01:45 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
Is that in fact correct? The quibbles here is what constitutes derivation.
If you write a program that calls a library during its function, is that
program derived from the library? Or is the library just a resource that the
application uses?
On 04/03/2013 01:22 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
Yes, it is. The terms of use of a proprietary program generally presume
a binding contract _restricting_ the scope of rights normally granted
with the legitimate purchase of media.
The difference is that the proprietary vendor needs to establish
On 04/03/2013 01:14 AM, Anthonys Lists wrote:
If your work does not include any of their work, then you don't need any
permission to not copy their work! :-)
But I'm not talking about copying. I'm talking about the right to use.
And if you read the GPL, version 2 (I presume 3 has similar
On 03/28/2013 08:28 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
My understanding is always been that the GPL applies to the software used to
produce a file, not to the file itself.
I think (at least in this case) you mean process, not produce.
You can draw an analogy to e.g. shell scripts, where the fact that
Hello all,
A question which has come up, and where I'm not sure what the answer or
intention is.
Lilypond is licensed under the GPL and reading through the license file, I
didn't come across any granted exceptions (IIRC the fonts have an exception for
embedding them into a document).
So, how
On 03/28/2013 06:35 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't see that. \include is an instruction, not an actual inclusion.
As opposed to dynamic linking, there is no combined entity being formed
for the sake of execution where one could possibly claim contributory
infringement. The inner workings
On 03/26/2013 09:52 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
I met a former colleague in the bus to Chemnitz, and he is at least
knowledgeable about EU research programmes. Do people here have ideas
about possible institutions who could be made to participate?
Imperial College, London has a fairly close
On 03/02/2013 08:02 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
But let me make a further suggestion:
As I already mentioned in an earlier thread I'm going to write a paper on
plain-text, git-driven work-flows, and I would be pleased if I could use this
project as example material for that.
The motivation for the
On 03/02/2013 07:45 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
AFAIK (but I'm not a lawyer either) you can't renew the copyright of the music
but only on editions. That's why one sometimes has to pay royalties for really
old music.
This is UnitedStatesian copyright law, which has historically had some amusing
On 03/04/2013 05:29 PM, Trevor Bača wrote:
Is anyone else out there using Ferneyhough-style flared hairpins?
I'd probably use them if they were available.
I'm considering sponsoring the work and I'm curious to know if there would be
any other adopters if the feature were implemented.
On 03/04/2013 05:29 PM, Trevor Bača wrote:
I'm considering sponsoring the work and I'm curious to know if there would be
any other adopters if the feature were implemented.
... could we make this a 2-in-1 to also cover his
brackets-to-show-extent-of-dynamic notation? This actually couples
On 03/02/2013 06:22 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
OTH we might take this as an opportunity to do something else as a showcase
project.
I wouldn't suggest Goldberg Variations but rather something complex from the end
of the 19th century (i.e. just out of copyright). Maybe something for string
quartet too
On 03/02/2013 06:27 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Alban Berg 4 Pieces for Clarinet and Piano. Out of copyright in the US
(pre-1922 publication) and Europe (more than 70 years since composer's death).
On IMSLP here: http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/12907
To me
On 03/02/2013 06:30 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
I also thought of Berg already. Maybe also his songs? (could prove useful for me
when having to play transpositions ...)
But the Clarinet Pieces are beautiful too. Good point.
Well, tell you what. If I put together a rough version of the 4 Pieces and
On 03/02/2013 06:43 PM, Jethro Van Thuyne wrote:
Renewed copyright 1952 by Helene Berg. How long did/does such a renewal run?
Well, this is the discussion on the subject on IMSLP's forums:
http://imslpforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=13t=3503
I believe that typical terms of copyright renewal were
Hello all,
Taking a look at Berg Op. 5 (see Sibelius-related discussion) I realized that it
uses a slight variant of the dodecaphonic accidental style: every note has an
accidental, but only for its _first_ appearance in the bar.
Any advice on how to achieve this automatically?
Thanks best
On 03/01/2013 06:17 PM, Guy Stalnaker wrote:
Is it possible to modify the brace from a GrandStaff or the positioning of the
brace for the PianoStaff version so that it is more like the BH engraving? I
know the example from the LP documentation is acceptable (the Peter's Edition of
the Bach is
On 02/28/2013 02:30 AM, Adam Spiers wrote:
I don't follow your logic here at all. Being large and complex
doesn't rule it out from being a starting point. If it *wasn't*
large, there wouldn't be as much to gain from starting with it
vs. starting from scratch.
You make two rather big
On 02/28/2013 02:11 PM, Daniel Rosen wrote:
I'm typesetting a piece of vocal music, and I want to have a melisma without a
slur being drawn. I tried \override Slur #'stencil = ##f, but when I compiled
it, the output appeared as if I had written \override Slur #'transparent =
##t--in other
On 02/27/2013 11:41 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
I am and have been ambivalent about being part of the GNU project. It
has come with a lot of harping about how we should say things (like
insisting on naming Linux as GNU/Linux), with little in return.
At the risk of opening up a can of worms,
(Apologies to David, I hit Reply instead of Reply List when first writing
this response.)
On 02/22/2013 12:10 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
If the file format describes exactly how the finished score will appear,
what will happen with the spacing when transposing? Presumably it is
ingrained into
On 02/22/2013 09:02 PM, Henning Hraban Ramm wrote:
I think his point was that _no_ file format ever describes exactly how the
finished score would appear
No? We have PDF. Maybe they have too. :-
Write once, read many, edit difficult ;-)
___
On 02/18/2013 03:17 AM, Luca Rossetto Casel wrote:
Yes, in most cases brackets are indeed unnecessary. But I know some
over-accurate editions that aim to reproduce the original text as faithfully as
possible, giving evidence to every critical intervention - for example, the
Ricordi critical
On 02/17/2013 01:10 PM, Javier Ruiz-Alma wrote:
I found an accidental notation rule in 1803 music introductory textbook by M.
Clementi, says accidental was also omitted on the following bar it when happened
to be first note played of same pitch as prior bar accidental (explicit example
shown
On 02/17/2013 04:48 PM, Luca Rossetto Casel wrote:
In present editions, this notation is generally uniformed to the modern one -
eventually putting the added alterations in parentheses or brackets.
Is this really a case where brackets would be used? The typical reason for
inserting a
On 02/14/2013 01:36 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
a) a reliable and scaleable mechanism to make individual problems go
away by manual labor. WYSIWYG systems offer that. I think that
Frescobaldi tries offering a bit of that as well.
The really simple way of putting this: It needs to be as easy as
On 02/14/2013 04:17 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Uh, they fired the original developers and their team without much of a
migration strategy. It is unlikely that substantial new developments
are planned, or this would have been an economically stupid course.
I'm not saying it was a smart thing to
On 02/14/2013 04:44 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
While it may not seem to be intuitive you can actually write extremely robust
house style sheets (or rather libraries which I find much more reliable than
any preset templates or whatever you could use with WYSIWYG software.
With the additional advantage
On 02/14/2013 05:32 PM, Urs Liska wrote:
Maybe I'll get in touch with you before. I already intended to present the
outline of the presentation here and ask for feedback - I think it's an issue
that concerns many of us ...
(The presentation is due at the end of April, so it will be some time
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
