these programs operate as you describe
Okay, then they *do* use (essentially) the same method as Lilypond,
not some visually-oriented method which follows the key
signature...
Not so. In Sibelius, you put the key signature, e.g. F sharp
major, then
type
the plain letter names,
Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi David R,
AFAIK, all of the graphical-interface music scoring programs
use the visually-oriented logic.
The last time I used Finale — which, thankfully, was a very long time
ago! ;) — there were only two ways of entering notes:
1. From a MIDI keyboard:
Hi Joseph,
The discussion is heading in some unfortunate directions because of a
confusion between data entry -- which is a matter of the user
interface
-- and the underlying data _structures_, which are something else.
[...]
What's implicit in this is that Finale's data structures, like
Frederick Dennis wrote:
In Sibelius, you put the key signature, e.g. F sharp major, then type
the plain letter names, e.g. f g a b c d e f which plays back as the
scale of F sharp major.
I knew there was a reason why I didn't like Sibelius ... 'simple' ways
of working that wind up generating
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes:
That being said, nobody's stopping anyone who wants to write a Scheme
function that would support such a beast: that's the beauty of open
source software! ;)
As an experiment, and not because I think it is a good idea, I toyed
with
Am Montag, 31. August 2009 06:14:21 schrieb David Raleigh Arnold:
On Saturday 29 August 2009, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
David,
The key signature is and has been for many centuries
an integral part of the notation.
Yes... and now you're suggesting we make it *not* integral — your
2009/8/31 Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com:
However, the absolute pitch names a, b, etc. are really absolute pitch names
and their meaning should never, ever depend on the key signature. Just ask
anyone music teacher of any level you know...
I think it does worth mentioning the
Hi David R,
AFAIK, all of the graphical-interface music scoring programs
use the visually-oriented logic.
The last time I used Finale — which, thankfully, was a very long time
ago! ;) — there were only two ways of entering notes:
1. From a MIDI keyboard: Clearly, you can't follow the key
From: Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca:
Hi David R,
AFAIK, all of the graphical-interface music scoring programs
use the visually-oriented logic.
The last time I used Finale — which, thankfully, was a very long
time
ago! ;) — there were only two ways of entering
Hi Kees,
these programs operate as you describe
Okay, then they *do* use (essentially) the same method as Lilypond,
not some visually-oriented method which follows the key signature...
So is there *any* example of an application which tries to follow
the key signature for someone?
Not
2009/8/31 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca:
Hi Kees,
these programs operate as you describe
Okay, then they *do* use (essentially) the same method as Lilypond, not some
visually-oriented method which follows the key signature...
So is there *any* example of an application
Hi Francisco,
Well, I think technically it's easy, just draw the little balls.
You'll have a drawing program that knows little about music.
Of course, you're right...
I was foolishly assuming this would be a music engraving program that
knew something about music. ;)
Thanks,
Kieren.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 08:32, Kieren
MacMillankieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote:
Hi Kees,
these programs operate as you describe
Okay, then they *do* use (essentially) the same method as Lilypond, not some
visually-oriented method which follows the key signature...
So is there *any*
Using the QWERTY way (QWERTZ in German layout keyboard) does indeed work the
visual way in programs like MuseScore, and Sibelius 5.
Depending on the key signature, for example a keyboard stroke d gives
either des d or dis.
regards
Arne Peters, Berlin
(reading the whole slightly baffled and
On Friday 28 August 2009, David Rogers wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:58, Kieren
MacMillankieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote:
Hi David (et al),
Just to be absolutely clear, the fallacy in your argument lies in
the
following statement:
It's necessary to consider the sound of the
Hi David,
The initial impulse for the negative attitude, which has prevented any
thought of how the thing could and should be done, is simple laziness.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I *have* put thought into how this
could be done in Lilypond, and ultimately decided not that it CAN'T
Hi David,
Example of an application (Mac OS X only) that does follow the key
signature on mouse-click input: NoteAbility
http://debussy.music.ubc.ca/NoteAbility/
Interesting... Keith Hamel was a teacher of mine at UBC, and so I
used NoteWriter back in the late 80s and early 90s.
The last
At 13:39 on 31 Aug 2009, David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
How is insisting on one mode of pitch entry any different from
insisting on every note having its duration number? Or insisting on
specifying an octave with each note, ruling out relative pitch? How
is \followKeySignature any different in
On 31 Aug 2009, at 19:50, Arne Peters wrote:
Using the QWERTY way (QWERTZ in German layout keyboard) does indeed
work the
visual way in programs like MuseScore, and Sibelius 5.
Depending on the key signature, for example a keyboard stroke d
gives
either des d or dis.
There is the
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:21:34 -0700
From: Kees van den Doel kvand...@shaw.ca
Subject: Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Message-ID: cd15c2846d16b.4a9b7...@shaw.ca
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil
these programs operate as you describe
Okay, then they *do* use (essentially) the same method as Lilypond,
not some visually-oriented method which follows the key signature...
Not so. In Sibelius, you put the key signature, e.g. F sharp major, then
type
the plain letter names, e.g. f g a b
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 04:13:56PM -0400, David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
But in this instance, the majority of coders line up in opposition.
You have shouted down the users, but convinced none. Why? Because
you are wrong.
We don't care.
We don't have to.
We're the telephone company.
Cheers,
-
Graham Percival wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 04:13:56PM -0400, David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
But in this instance, the majority of coders line up in opposition.
You have shouted down the users, but convinced none. Why? Because
you are wrong.
We don't care.
We don't have to.
We're the
Hi David,
Likewise if you use TeX, or a high-dollar word processor, and you
type there
the program isn't going to know if you should have typed their or
they're.
Perfect analogy!
I was looking for one, but couldn't come up with it — kudos!
Regards,
Kieren.
On Sunday 30 August 2009, David Bobroff wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 04:13:56PM -0400, David Raleigh Arnold
wrote:
But in this instance, the majority of coders line up in opposition.
You have shouted down the users, but convinced none. Why? Because
you are
You can either choose to learn that rule or
you can write an extension to make LilyPond do it another way.
A sed script to do it was almost trivial, even for me.
So then why not (re)write it in Scheme and contribute the function/
tip to the Lilypond community, so that others could benefit
On Saturday 29 August 2009, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
David,
The key signature is and has been for many centuries
an integral part of the notation.
Yes... and now you're suggesting we make it *not* integral — your
argument holds no merit.
No. I'm stating outright that you make the key
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 21:14, David Raleigh Arnoldd...@openguitar.com wrote:
On Saturday 29 August 2009, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
David,
The key signature is and has been for many centuries
an integral part of the notation.
Yes... and now you're suggesting we make it *not* integral — your
--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
Subject: Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
To: Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 7:10 AM
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:40:41PM -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
Yes, but most novices with no knowledge of lilypond or music
theory won't be writing in 5 sharps or flats, double-sharps
or flats, or b/c e/f sharp/flats.
These accidentals are common. B-sharp crops up in jazz tunes, even
On Friday 28 August 2009, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
David,
It is also perfectly reasonable for a person who has been writing
music for decades for it to make no sense. Why?
Because it makes no sense, and never did.
?
Why not a \followKeySignature command?
??
I can't remember
On Friday 28 August 2009, David Rogers wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:58, Kieren
MacMillankieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote:
Hi David (et al),
Just to be absolutely clear, the fallacy in your argument lies in
the
following statement:
It's necessary to consider the sound of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Samstag, 29. August 2009 21:55:26 schrieb David Raleigh Arnold:
On Friday 28 August 2009, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
I can't remember who in this thread first suggested that when you
play an instrument you follow the key signature, but
On 2009-08-29, David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
I know that. I think Lilypond is operating correctly here, that this
part of the code should be kept as is with nothing added, and that
those users who wish it operated differently are making a mistake, for
exactly the reasons you've just
David,
The key signature is and has been for many centuries
an integral part of the notation.
Yes... and now you're suggesting we make it *not* integral — your
argument holds no merit.
Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
David,
You have shouted down the users, but convinced none.
Why? Because you are wrong.
Oh, now I remember you... I think every thread you've ever been
involved in ends in some snobby, irritating comment like that! =)
Thanks for the flashback,
Kieren.
On Tuesday 25 August 2009, James E. Bailey wrote:
It is actually perfectly reasonable for a person completely new to
notating music for this to not make sense.
It is also perfectly reasonable for a person who has been writing
music for decades for it to make no sense. Why? Because it
makes
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:33 PM, David Raleigh Arnoldd...@openguitar.com
wrote:
It is also perfectly reasonable for a person who has been writing
music for decades for it to make no sense. Why? Because it
makes no sense, and never did.
Why not a \followKeySignature command?
It would
David,
It is also perfectly reasonable for a person who has been writing
music for decades for it to make no sense. Why?
Because it makes no sense, and never did.
?
Why not a \followKeySignature command?
??
I can't remember who in this thread first suggested that when you
play an
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 08:03, Kieren
MacMillankieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote:
I can't remember who in this thread first suggested that when you play an
instrument you follow the key signature, but this notion is silly — and
ultimately harmful (to music education).
That would be me.
David Rogers wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 08:03, Kieren
MacMillankieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote:
I can't remember who in this thread first suggested that when you play an
instrument you follow the key signature, but this notion is silly — and
ultimately harmful (to music education).
Hi David,
Whether we like it or not, there are going to be intelligent people
who misinterpret Lilypond's requirements in this case, and will
perhaps not want to believe that such sophisticated software
could be so naive/stupid/buggy/whatever as to
not take into account its own \key
Hi David (et al),
Just to be absolutely clear, the fallacy in your argument lies in the
following statement:
It's necessary to consider the sound of the music,
*and not the conventional rules of printed scores*
when doing Lilypond pitch input.
Quite the contrary, the conventional rules
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:24:51 +0100
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
Subject: Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
To: Leonardo Herrera leonardo.herr...@gmail.com
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Message-ID: 20090825182451.gb29...@sapphire
Content-Type: text/plain
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:58, Kieren
MacMillankieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote:
Hi David (et al),
Just to be absolutely clear, the fallacy in your argument lies in the
following statement:
It's necessary to consider the sound of the music,
*and not the conventional rules of printed
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 01:34:28PM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
I would just hope (and certainly voice my desire) that the powers that be
— Han-Wen, Graham, etc. — would not add such a function to the base
distribution, nor give it any serious face-time in the documentation.
Rest assured
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:33:08AM -0400, David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
It is also perfectly reasonable for a person who has been writing
music for decades for it to make no sense. Why? Because it
makes no sense, and never did.
Welcome to Western musical notation. If you want something to
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:01:05PM -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
If the above seems confusing, consider this: if you were
playing a
piano, which key would you hit? If you would press a black
key,
then you must add -is or -es to the note name!
The hint at the end about black keys
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 08:54, James E.
Baileyderhindem...@googlemail.com wrote:
It is actually perfectly reasonable for a person completely new to notating
music for this to not make sense.
Yes, I suppose it is.
A suggestion for addition to the documentation, section 2.2.1:
When *you*
Hi guys correct me if I am wrong.
The g minor chord has two flats Eb Bb which need to be marked as es
and bes in Lilypond other wise the Accidental_engraver sees them as
naturals in the g minor chord, hence the natural symbol for any
unmarked E or B note in your music.
Just trying to
Correct. *ALL* pitches in the input *must* be explicitly given. The
key signature assignment tells LilyPond how to display the pitches. For
exmaple; 'e' *always* means e-natural no matter what the key signature is.
-David
Simon Mackenzie wrote:
Hi guys correct me if I am wrong.
The g
In response to Graham and others who have expressed frustration about
people who have failed to pickup on accidentals.
It can be very difficult for fist time novices like myself to
understand implicit information about what is a reasonably technical
musical concept.
I spent four hours last
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Dienstag, 25. August 2009 10:09:53 schrieb Simon Mackenzie:
The g minor chord has two flats Eb Bb
Exactly. This means that a note that is displayed on the middle staff line
without any accidental is actually a B-flat, not a B. In Lilypond you
As a follow-up, have the people with unwanted accidentals seen this:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/user/lilypond-learning/Accidentals-and-key-signatures#Key-signatures
...and is it not clear? The last example on that page shouldn't be any
less clear than the example I gave.
Sorry but as a first time user to lilypond and music in general this
section in the tutorial was about as clear as mud to me.
Not wanting to offend anyone just stating how I felt the fist time I
read this section in the learning tutorial.
As I said previously when I have time I'll have a
On Aug 25, 2009, at 3:50 AM, Simon Mackenzie wrote:
Sorry but as a first time user to lilypond and music in general
this section in the tutorial was about as clear as mud to me.
Not wanting to offend anyone just stating how I felt the fist time
I read this section in the learning tutorial.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:34 AM, David Bobroffbobr...@centrum.is wrote:
As a follow-up, have the people with unwanted accidentals seen this:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/user/lilypond-learning/Accidentals-and-key-signatures#Key-signatures
...and is it not clear? The last
It is actually perfectly reasonable for a person completely new to
notating music for this to not make sense. The purpose of the
documentation is to provide information about how lilypond prints
music. Other resources are necessary to provide information about the
difference, both written
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 08:46:59AM -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
For the developers, I think that something is confusing here for English
speakers: the use of -es and -is for flatted and sharped notes as the
default. I was initially bewildered by this, not knowing that the
default
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:05:45AM -0400, Leonardo Herrera wrote:
I do have a suggestion: I would add two examples to the section that
shows this clearly.
How is that more clear than:
In this example:
\key d \major
d cis fis
No note has a printed accidental, but you must still
Graham Percival wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 08:46:59AM -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
If the user is new to music in general then they have set themselves a
daunting task trying to score music with LilyPond. There is no way for
the documentation to make up for the user's lack of knowledge
Without seeing your code we can only speculate about your problem.
Having said that, however, new users often miss the point that LilyPond
needs to be told the actual pitch of every note regardless of the key
signature. If you're getting, for example, e-naturals when you want
e-flats, be sure
Hi Sona,
I can send my page code, if it would be helpful.
Yes, it would.
Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 24. August 2009 20:39:37 schrieb Sona:
I'm new to Lilypond and the list. So far the code is pretty intuitive, but
I am stumped by the way accidentals work. Several posts deal with this
subject, but probably are beyond a novice's ability
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:39:37AM -0700, Sona wrote:
I'm new to Lilypond and the list. So far the code is pretty
intuitive, but I am stumped by the way accidentals work. Several
posts deal with this subject, but probably are beyond a novice's
ability to undertand.
No. Those posts tried a
I'm new to Lilypond and the list. So far the code is pretty intuitive, but I am
stumped by the way accidentals work. Several posts deal with this subject, but
probably are beyond a novice's ability to undertand.
I'm transcribing a modern piece with 2 flats in the key signature (I've set
\key
Graham Percival wrote:
It sounds like your input contained e-natural and b-natural. You
probably wanted to write ees and bes in your input file.
Seriously, have you read the tutorial? If so, why did you skip
over the big warning about accidentals? This is the second person
recently to not
Thank you to all for setting me straight. It's working for me now :-))
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
68 matches
Mail list logo
