James Harkins <[email protected]> writes: > On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:04:36 PM HKT, Richard Shann wrote: >>> My music only seldom follows common practice tonality, >> >> The built-in support is for any range (e.g. E-flat to G-sharp, or D to >> F-double-sharp), with the modulation controller on the MIDI keyboard >> changing the range sharper or flatter. So if you wanted some assorted >> collection of sharps and flats (E-flat with A-flat but F-sharp ...) you >> would need a bit of scheme to convert the notes as they arrive, which is >> quite do-able - there are examples of this sort of MIDI filter in >> Denemo. > > Sure, that may be of interest to the other people on the thread who > *are* looking for MIDI input. For myself, I prefer working with the > code directly, and I will likely continue to prefer the code even if > there's the option of super-amazingly-accurate MIDI input.
I would think that it could save time typing in existing scores, in particular stuff you are used to playing. It does not preclude you from working with the code directly afterwards. > That's the great thing about LP's more open design. It's not really that it's more open but rather that parts of it are more direct. If you take a look at the philosophies behind string instruments, several flavors have survived: We have bowed instruments. They have converged to unfretted instruments with few courses (mostly four), the focus being on their "cash register" or "money notes", namely excellent and continuous control over articulation, pitch and volume in monophonic settings. Handplucked instruments tend to be fretted and equipped with somewhat more courses, the frets required for better sustenance and sound quality of principally decaying notes, and simplifying polyphonic play. With keyboard string instruments, quill-plucked instruments are mostly dead, and so are stopped keyboard instruments (like the fretted clavichord). The dominant survivor is the hammered-action pianoforte which offers reasonably uncomplicated polyphony and per-note control of the initial dynamic. So even if there are common ancestors like the hurdy gurdy, specialization on particular strengths has lead the instrument families apart into different specimens. In a similar vein, GUI tool philosophies and type entry methods have diverged to a degree where there are some workflows that you don't _want_ to be doing with a particular tool. A tool like Denemo does not have what I would call a "closed" design, but it has a different philosophy. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
