On Jan 21, 2008 3:15 AM, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, that was humbling. I honestly thought that NR 1.1 Pitches > was almost perfect, but the comments (thank you!) from last time > clearly indicated otherwise. When I tried to read the material > with a fresh mind (aided by the comments), I found many, many > things to fix. > > As always, GDP here: > http://web.uvic.ca/~gperciva/ <http://web.uvic.ca/%7Egperciva/> > > Some sections have been completely rewritten (particularly Octave > check). Please read the new Pitches section and send > comments.<http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user>
Umm, can we check something here? 1.1.1.3 Accidentals about a third of the way down has ... "Half-flats and half-sharps are formed by adding eh and ih; ..." ... which sounds absoutely crazy to me and should instead read ... "Quarter-flats and quarter-sharps are formed by adding eh and ih; ..." And I had written another paragraph explaining that I'd seen this "half-flat" (and even more amazingly "sesqui-flat") type of terminology other places in the docs and that it is finally time for that terminology to die and never return. HOWEVER googling for "half sharp" and "half flat" produces this wiki entry ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_%28music%29 ... which includes both terms in the caption towards the bottom of the page. To me this is an obvious error and I immediately want to know who's behind the wiki article (as is, alas, so frequently the case on wiki). But can we get a quick show of hands? I've worked with microtonal accidentals for years and have always only heard the symbol standing in front of a c-quarter-flat as a "quarter-flat". And I certainly have never heard either of the terms "half-flat" or "half-sharp" used by anyone, ever, whether a composer, performer, or otherwise. Have I lost my mind? Or is this is a UK thing? Or what? (I understand the purported logic of the "half-type" type of teminology: such a symbol carries half the flattening power of a normal flat; but this completely misses the point that the accidentals are relative to *complete* (whole) tones and not to *semitones*. How on earth would you talk about third-tones and sixth-tones and eighth-tones with such a system? "Use a half-flat to notate c-quarter-flat ... and use a quarter-flat to notate c-eighth-flat ... and use a third-flat to notate c-sixth-flat ..."? The hell?) -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
