Compiling Japanese snippets.pdf fails

[Michael Käppler]

Hi all,
I'd like to resume my work regarding upgrading texinfo.tex [1] from June.
However, one problem leads to another (as usually :-)) and the
peacefully failing XeTeX
without comprehensible error messages is not exactly helpful für debugging.
Anyway, I got the latest texinfo.tex from the Texinfo Savannah repo, put it
into $SRCDIR/tex/ (together with texinfo-ja.tex and txi-*.tex), applied
the attached patch
to get PDF output also in Czech, Chinese and Japanese and fearlessly
tried a 'make doc'.

That failed on ja/snippets.pdf.

I went back to the old texinfo.tex versions, but it did fail even
earlier, on ja/notation.pdf.
What I noticed is that the Documentation/ja/snippets.tely added by
Han-Wen in
f195919ddc84154c3ddd31caf4685908a95185aa
had \input texinfo at the beginning, which should likely be
\input texinfo-ja

But that did not help in sorting out the compilation failure.
After manual bisecting I could track the problem down to the
"Flamenco notation" snippet in the section "Fretted strings".
If the Japanese texidoc file is included, XeTeX bombs out.
Find the file attached for reference.

Does anybody have a clue what could be special about this particular
file? Hosoda-san?

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2020-06/msg00033.html
From 1ae92d7427e70d347a62b80c212ebd87dfcb433b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Michael=20K=C3=A4ppler?= 
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 19:23:27 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Build all PDFs

---
 Documentation/GNUmakefile | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/GNUmakefile b/Documentation/GNUmakefile
index c05968eced..f6bc1e2310 100644
--- a/Documentation/GNUmakefile
+++ b/Documentation/GNUmakefile
@@ -112,8 +112,8 @@ INFO_IMAGES_DIR = lilypond
 ALL_PDF_FILES=$(TEXINFO_MANUALS:%=$(outdir)/%.pdf)
 
 # uncomment below to build PDF in cs/ja/zh
-# PDF_FILES=$(ALL_PDF_FILES)
-PDF_FILES = $(filter-out $(outdir)/cs/% $(outdir)/zh/% $(outdir)/ja/%, 
$(ALL_PDF_FILES))
+PDF_FILES=$(ALL_PDF_FILES)
+# PDF_FILES = $(filter-out $(outdir)/cs/% $(outdir)/zh/% $(outdir)/ja/%, 
$(ALL_PDF_FILES))
 
 target_language=$(word 2, $(subst /, ,$@))
 
-- 
2.17.1


フラメンコのギターでは、特殊な記譜法が用いられます:

* ゴルペ奏法の記号: 薬指の爪でギターの表面板を叩く奏法
* ストローク (の方向) を示す矢印
* 異なる運指の文字 (@qq{p}: 親指, @pp{i}: 人差し指, @pp{m}: 中指,
@pp{a}: 薬指, @pp{x}: 小指)
* 3 指あるいは 4 指のラスゲアード: すべての指で上向きにストロークし、@c
最後は人差し指で上下にストロークします。
* アバニコ: (下向きに) 親指で、(上向きに) 小指と人差し指で (組となって)
ストロークします。小指の代わりに中指と薬指を使うアバニコ 2 もあります。
* アルサプーア: 親指で高速で演奏します。

運指記号の多くは矢印を伴います。アバニコやラスゲアードでは、最初の和音のみに@c
符頭が表示されます。

このスニペットは @samp{flamenco.ly} にヘッダとして切り出して使うことができる@c
コードを含んでおり、切り出したものがソース ファイルにあります。

Re: tie over clef change

[Dan Eble]

On Sep 27, 2020, at 16:49, Jean Abou Samra  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> So, I've tried to follow this thread, but with 35 messages, this is becoming 
> difficult...
> 
> Could someone make a short summary of what is at stake here? What should we 
> decide?

The thread has veered into musicology, which is unnecessary, since LilyPond's 
input language already has ways to express both ties and slurs as the composer 
or editor intends.

The question is (approximately) for a non-horizontal tie, is it practically 
acceptable to have the engraver create a Slur grob instead of a Tie grob, or 
would it be better to expand the Tie interface so that it can be adjusted like 
a Slur, or would it be better to create an entirely new type of grob, or …?

I think (not having tested it) that coding with both a tie and a slur and using 
\once \omit Tie might work around the issue in cases where slurs are not 
already involved.

The decision isn't so much "thus shall it be" as "assuming any of these could 
be made to work (which might not be true), which would be preferred?"
— 
Dan

Re: tie over clef change

[Lukas-Fabian Moser]

The tonal center collapse is done purely vocally in an a cappella
passage and when the instruments come back in, it's in a resurrection
key and instrument groups (like brass) that are typical for it.

[...]

Here is a link  to a
Herreweghe version.  The piano extract displayed in parallel would
suggest that there is, after all, an instrumental part even in the 2:30
and finally 3:00 (or so) locations which is a bit surprising to me since
I remember how we fought keeping the intonation in line so that the
resurrection trumpets could fall right in.  I cannot hear instruments
there right now but I have only builtin speakers at low volume right now
so I may be wrong about that.


It's a cappella plus (un-figured) Continuo essentially doubling the 
choir bass:


The presence of the Continuo should mean "let the continuo band play 
along"; while there is no explicit indication as to which instrument(s) 
should be used (at least in the Bärenreiter score), the repeated 
crochets-with-slurs clearly indicate that Bach expects a bowed instrument.


In Herreweghe's rendering, I hear cello (original continuo line) plus 
organ (playing the complete chords).


Lukas

Re: tie over clef change

[Benkő Pál]

David Kastrup  ezt írta (időpont: 2020. szept. 27., V, 22:01):
>
> Hans Åberg  writes:
>
> >> On 27 Sep 2020, at 19:57, Lukas-Fabian Moser  wrote:
> >>
> >>> I seem to remember that even in Bach's B minor mass (where E12 was not
> >>> yet a thing) there is an enharmonic tie (or at least tonal repetition?)
> >>> in the transition from "Confiteor" to "Et expecto".  I mean, that
> >>> transition is a tonal center nightmare anyway.
> >>>
> >> In bar 138:
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> Basically that is an example of enharmonic equivalence of diminished
> >> 7th chords: The tonal centre in the preceding bars is clearly d (d
> >> major with hints of d minor), so the diminished chord in bar 138 is
> >> most probably first heard as f♯-a-c-e♭ (with expected resolution to
> >> g minor), but is then being re-interpreted (and written) as
> >> f♯-a-b♯-d♯, resolving to c♯ major functioning as a dominant to f♯
> >> minor.
> >> My point is: Even without E12 tuning, this is clearly an example of
> >> fully exploited enharmonic equivalence used as a "wormhole" in an
> >> otherwise purely diatonic tonal system. There can be no question
> >> that this is semantically a tie.
> >>
> >> (One might raise the objection that, maybe, when performing the
> >> piece, a slight adjustment in intonation might be needed in the
> >> transition from c to b♯. But this can also happen for bona fide ties
> >> in purely diatonic music, so that does not yield an argument against
> >> the tie being a tie.)
>
> The tonal center collapse is done purely vocally in an a cappella
> passage and when the instruments come back in, it's in a resurrection
> key and instrument groups (like brass) that are typical for it.
>
> Really, you need to listen to it before sorting it into the context of
> its period.  This passage is completely out of whack with its time while
> it is arrived at from a grandiosely conservative fugue in full ars
> antiqua.
>
> Here is a link  to a
> Herreweghe version.  The piano extract displayed in parallel would
> suggest that there is, after all, an instrumental part even in the 2:30
> and finally 3:00 (or so) locations which is a bit surprising to me since
> I remember how we fought keeping the intonation in line so that the
> resurrection trumpets could fall right in.  I cannot hear instruments
> there right now but I have only builtin speakers at low volume right now
> so I may be wrong about that.

Not purely a cappella, since the continuo group plays throughout,
including (a) keyboard instrument(s) playing the complete chords (in
whatever temperament c and his are the same key).

Re: tie over clef change

[Hans Åberg]

> On 28 Sep 2020, at 00:26, Lukas-Fabian Moser  wrote:
> 
>>> However, this gets *never* notated as such.
>>> 
>> I gave the example of augment sixth chords, that seem to never be notated as 
>> diminished sevenths.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_sixth_chord
> I assume you meant "dominant sevenths"?

Right. Typo.

> (Augmented sixth chords, at least "Italian" and "German" augmented sixths, 
> are identical to dominant sevenths without or with fifth on a modern 
> keyboard, e.g. c-e-[g]-a♯ vs. c-e-[g]-b♭, but none of them yield diminished 
> sevenths.)

They are equal in E12, but not in the staff system or in an orchestra.

> But anyway, I'm not sure that your statement holds true invariably: I'm 
> pretty sure that in late 19th century composers like Bruckner, the difference 
> between both chords becomes blurry. I will see if I can find an example, 
> maybe even older than Bruckner.

Some composers though seem to be careful about the difference, and it is a bit 
curious why.

> On a related but different note, I always found it funny how certain editors 
> of Mozart's Requiem, of all things, tried to "improve" Mozart's 
> chromatic/enharmonic spelling. See the old Peters vocal scores on IMSLP at 
> the end of the "Confutatis maledictis"
> 
> 
> 
> vs. the original Mozart spelling (which Süßmayr preserved faithfully):
> 
> 

Because of such a practise, one would have to go back to originals or use 
Urtext which have footnotes about the changes.

> I would not claim that this change generates any measurable difference in 
> what the musicians actually play and sing, but I imagine it changes the way 
> they _think_ their lines.

This is an important point, I think. One should notate the musical intent, not 
merely as a line of notes. For example, ornaments do not necessarily become 
clearer if written out explicitly, but the converse may happen.

There is a difference between the type of music: Jazz is pretty much E12, and 
the Mehegan Jazz Improvisation books use enharmonic equivalents without 
discrimination, if I remember it correctly.

> In particular, I like Mozart's notation for the clarity with which he 
> expresses that he uses the diminished seventh as a triple-leading tone 
> neighbour to the ensuing dominant seventh - not to mention the fact that this 
> exact device is all over the place in the second half of the Confutatis, and 
> it's frankly silly to change it just once, only to avoid a double flat...

I did try to measure a dominant 7th chord in some Beethoven's orchestral work, 
I think it was, and from what I could see, they just play stacked thirds. Not 
the 7th partial, as has been suggested. Also, I used to play along with a 
meantone tuning with some Balkan piece, it may have been a Paidushko with Petko 
Radev on clarinet, and I found that it did not blend well. So when I measured 
the clarinet, I found it was a comma off, suggesting he is playing in 
Pythagorean tuning.

As for spelling, the violin pizzicato in the tune below is in F♯ harmonic 
minor, so when written out, one gets an E♯, not an F. If one plays along with 
an E12 instrument, it sounds a bit of tune, even adjusted for pitch as it is an 
original analog recording. I originally thought it might be because of the 
pizzicato, which stretches the octave, but perhaps it is because there are no 
other good pitch references on the violins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvSNAfSaezk=PLJ2I_U9XF3oDMwyVjAULrShxZKWlmHOGy=6