On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Heikki Johannes Junes wrote:
> ... > I just figured out that in modern music the diatonic stave (seven pitches > for chromatic scale in a stave) is not adequate to represent always > dodecafonic music. Agreed; the ordinary staff notation as implemented in lily was developed for notating tunes in diatonic scales (IIRC, it was Guido of Arrezzo who introduced this scheme, but originally with 4 lines). > For example, if you want to represent parallel clusters > (using the current notation), they will be glued together. Instead, a > chromatic stave (twelve pitches for chromatic scale in a stave) is adequate > to represent parallel clusters. The most intuive version of such scales is > the following: > > As a diatonic stave, a cromatic stave would have five lines, starting from > c'': > > c'' -O- > b' O > ais' -----O----------------------------------- > a' O > gis' ---------O------------------------------- > g O > fis' -------------O--------------------------- > f' O > e' -----------------O----------------------- > dis' O > d' ---------------------O------------------- > cis' O > c' -O- > The problem is that there are many different opinions on how a staff for contemporary music should look like. To me, suggestions often give the impression of people carrying out a silly contest of who has the fanciest idea for a new notation system (see http://speechskript.com/samples.htm for some weired examples). I think we should not support a particular one of these innummerable systems of equally low(?) quality. Either there is a commonly agreed standard for dodecaphocic music to support (which I do not see), or we should look at the underlying common principles and try to provide a flexible mechanism such that the user can adopt lily to his or her individual notation system. > It is rather easy to implement, and chromatic marks are optional. The only > obscurity here is in the note naming: How should one call the note names so > that there would not be a conflict between cromatic marks and note names. > For example, `c + is' is marked with a chromatic mark but `cis' without. > Apparently, one has to > > A) invent a set of new note names for such notation, such as: > - numbers: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 > - alphabets: a b c d e f g h i j k l > - user-given: c h r o m a n t i z e d (different letters) > > or B) use current note names and give the chromatic mark as an argument: > - the following will result to same notation: cisis d eses > - the following will result to chromatic marks: cis-is d es-es > I agree that a future version of lily should support vertical alignment of pitches according to a chromatic scale rather than to a diatonic scale, such that the vertical position of a pitch depends linearly on the logarithm of its associated frequency (i.e., cisis=d=eses all result in the same vertical position, with accidental engraver being turned off). I agree, because this seems to be a common principle among most of the suggested notation systems for chromatic scales. Apart from chromatic scales, this principle is also common for frequency-based notation (such as in the field of electronic music). The reason is clear: binding the vertical position directly to the frequency is a simple, natural mapping in any system with equidistant intervals. I disagree with the idea of introducing "chromatic marks". Accidentals are a result of transposing diatonic scales. In my opinion, they do not make any sense in a chromatic scale. Of course, since lily's input language is based on the 7 pitch names of a diatonic scale (letters a..g), we currently need alterations "-is" and/or "-es" to express all of the 12 pitches of a chromatic scale. But this problem is orthogonal to notation; it's just a matter of input language and should be discussed separately. > Modern music has a lot of new notation, and many of them are good and > intuitive. For example, accelerando can be marked with increasing number > of bars (here only two notes are shown). > > /| > -<-| > | \| > | | > | O > O > > Here the problem is that what is the mathematical duration of such > construct. But anyway, the notation exist and is well known. > Can you cite a publisher and/or composer? The more scores of temporary music I look at, the more I get the impression, that certain publishers try to set notational standards solely by their relevance in the market rather than by carefully designing their notational extensions. I think, one should carefully check if pretendedly "well known" notational standards make sense before implementing them in lily. Greetings, Juergen _______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
