David Rogers <davidandrewrog...@gmail.com> writes: > * Marc Weber <marco-owe...@gmx.de> [2011-03-14 04:01]: > >>-- O -- (O is the body of a note here) >>-- O -- >> >>the interval between both pitches depends on the location. >>Why?
[...] > Sure, various people have come up with several interesting and useful > (at least potentially useful) systems. I think in the end the trick is > not so much coming up with a good system as getting people to adopt > it. The "installed base" (to mis-use a term) of traditional notation > is very large, and people who already know any system at all are > reluctant to learn another unless it will bring them large and > immediate benefits. It brings large and immediate drawbacks. The _only_ non-fringe (and you might debate that) instrument I know that has controls _deliberately_ designed around a chromatic scale (note that string instruments have their controls dictated by physics) is the chromatic button accordion. Every _other_ instrument, even woodwinds and percussion, has its controls designed around a diatonic scale, and where that scale is not C major, the instrument is often written down in transposed notation. Playing notes on a system not matching the controls requires mental effort. Which gets worse when we are talking polyphony. It is the _main_ deterrent against people playing the chromatic button accordion in spite of numerous mechanical and musical advantages. It is also the main deterrent against guitar players learning to play from notes rather than tabulature. Because for guitar players, tabulature naturally corresponds to the controls on their instrument. And 99% of all musical literature is _scale-oriented_ rather than _interval_-oriented. So even singers tend to be better off with a notation focusing on scales rather than intervals, unless they happen to sing Schönberg. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user