Re: Change the shape of treble clef

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Karlin and Klose,

You get a lot more than just a treble clef, although that's what the OP was
asking. You get a very refined and subtle complete font. Cadence is very
subtle.

I tend to think of Abraham's work as what is called payware in the flight
sim world - not commercial greed but some recompense for the work put in,
and the ongoing support which is provided. Considering what you get, it's
very reasonably priced.

There's a long thread in the archives about the reasons Abraham turned to a
payware model, after I and others questioned this move, and it is well
worth reading. I'll dig up the link later. I know there are those who hold
the view that there is something bad about paying money for any add-on to
an open source product, and there is some merit in that, but it's not an
absolute given I think. If it means support for the developer, then that's
good for the whole community. After all, some of our developers are
supported by generous donations - a indirect form of payware.

Andrew



On 8 February 2018 at 23:31, Karlin High  wrote:

> On 2/8/2018 12:51 AM, klose wrote:
>
>> Thank you but they are not free. Any manuals explaining how to do it by
>> myself?
>>
>
> Look at the font examples for Abraham Lee's Cadence, and decide if a
> different treble clef is worth $39 USD for your purposes or not.
>
> https://www.musictypefoundry.com/product/mtf-cadence
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Tweaking Hairpin shape

[David Nalesnik]

Hi Stefano,

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Stefano Troncaro
 wrote:
> Hello again!
>
> I managed to modify David's translation of ly:hairpin::print to have it use
> two properties, Hairpin.rotate and Hairpin.straight-end, to achieve almost
> all the results I wanted.

Glad you got some use out of this!  I like the look of the
straight-edged hairpins.

>
> The idea is that Hairpin.rotate can be either a numerical value,
> representing the angle of rotation, or a procedure that returns the angle of
> rotation. In one of the examples I used the function discussed earlier in
> this thread to have it automatically detect the angle of a beam. However, I
> can't manage to make this idea work when the procedure given to
> Hairpin.rotate requires more than one variable. This is very inconvenient
> because for some cases the procedure would need to calculate again a lot of
> things that are already calculated in the process of making the stencil.

First of all, calling ly:grob-property calls any procedure the
property is set to.  The function ly:grob-property-data won't.

I don't know of any way in Scheme to overload functions or to count
arguments.  If you name your function, however, you can use
procedure-name.  (See the attached.)

HTH,
David
\version "2.19.80"

#(define (proc-number-or-false? obj)
   (or (procedure? obj)
   (number? obj)
   (eq? obj #f)))

#(define (define-grob-property symbol type? description)
   (if (not (equal? (object-property symbol 'backend-doc) #f))
   (ly:error (_ "symbol ~S redefined") symbol))

   (set-object-property! symbol 'backend-type? type?)
   (set-object-property! symbol 'backend-doc description)
   symbol)

#(map
  (lambda (x)
(apply define-grob-property x))

  `(
 (circled-tip-radius ,number? "Radius for hairpin circled tip")
 (rotate ,proc-number-or-false? "Custom rotation: a number specifies angle in degrees, a procedure will receive the grob and return an angle, #f deactivates rotation")
 (straight-end ,boolean? "Straighten the end of the hairpin when it's rotated?")
 ))


#(define broken-neighbor
   (lambda (grob)
 (let* ((pieces (ly:spanner-broken-into (ly:grob-original grob)))
(me-list (member grob pieces)))
   (if (> (length me-list) 1)
   (cadr me-list)
   '()

#(define (interval-dir-set i val dir)
   (cond ((= dir LEFT) (set-car! i val))
 ((= dir RIGHT) (set-cdr! i val))
 (else (ly:error "dir must be LEFT or RIGHT"

#(define (other-dir dir) (- dir))

#(define hairpin::print-scheme
   (lambda (grob)
 (let ((grow-dir (ly:grob-property grob 'grow-direction)))
   (if (not (ly:dir? grow-dir))
   (begin
(ly:grob-suicide! grob)
'()))

   (let* ((padding (ly:grob-property grob 'bound-padding 0.5))
  (bounds (cons (ly:spanner-bound grob LEFT)
(ly:spanner-bound grob RIGHT)))
  (broken (cons
   (not (= (ly:item-break-dir (car bounds)) CENTER))
   (not (= (ly:item-break-dir (cdr bounds)) CENTER)

 (if (cdr broken)
 (let ((next (broken-neighbor grob)))
   (if (ly:spanner? next)
   (begin
(ly:grob-property next 'after-line-breaking)
(set-cdr! broken (grob::is-live? next)))
   (set-cdr! broken #f

 (let* ((common
 (ly:grob-common-refpoint (car bounds) (cdr bounds) X))
(x-points (cons 0 0))
(circled-tip (ly:grob-property grob 'circled-tip))
(height (* (ly:grob-property grob 'height 0.2)
  (ly:staff-symbol-staff-space grob)))
(rad (ly:grob-property grob 'circled-tip-radius (* 0.525 height)))
(thick (* (ly:grob-property grob 'thickness 1.0)
 (ly:staff-symbol-line-thickness grob

   (define (inner dir)
 (let* ((b (interval-bound bounds dir))
(e (ly:generic-bound-extent b common)))
   (interval-dir-set
x-points (ly:grob-relative-coordinate b common X) dir)

   (if (interval-bound broken dir)
   (if (= dir LEFT)
   (interval-dir-set
x-points (interval-bound e (other-dir dir)) dir)
   (let* ((broken-bound-padding
   (ly:grob-property grob 'broken-bound-padding 0.0))
  (chp (ly:grob-object grob 'concurrent-hairpins)))
 (let loop ((i 0))
   (if (and (ly:grob-array? chp)
(< i (ly:grob-array-length chp)))
   (let ((span-elt (ly:grob-array-ref chp i)))
 (if (= (ly:item-break-dir (ly:spanner-bound span-elt RIGHT))
   

Re: Tweaking Hairpin shape

[Stefano Troncaro]

Hello again!

I managed to modify David's translation of ly:hairpin::print to have it use
two properties, Hairpin.rotate and Hairpin.straight-end, to achieve almost
all the results I wanted.

The idea is that Hairpin.rotate can be either a numerical value,
representing the angle of rotation, or a procedure that returns the angle
of rotation. In one of the examples I used the function discussed earlier
in this thread to have it automatically detect the angle of a beam.
However, I can't manage to make this idea work when the procedure given to
Hairpin.rotate requires more than one variable. This is very inconvenient
because for some cases the procedure would need to calculate again a lot of
things that are already calculated in the process of making the stencil.

Besides that, I have yet to figure out how to make a rotated Hairpin with
the circled-tip placed in the right spot (when it's a decrescendo,
crescendos pose no problem that I've found).

I think everything else is working as intended, but I could be wrong. I
attached it in case anyone wants to look at it or test it out.

Of course, suggestions on how to improve it / optimize it are welcome!

2018-02-06 19:38 GMT-03:00 Thomas Morley :

> 2018-02-06 16:10 GMT+01:00 Werner LEMBERG :
> >
> >> Sure, I attached a few from here
> >> 
> >
> > Thanks, but in this score there is not a single heavily rotated
> > hairpin; I would say that the differences are not of any importance.
> >
> >> .
> >
> > Oh, and an orchestral score doesn't contain heavily rotated hairpins
> > by its very nature.  What I see here is very irregular.
> >
> >> Of course there are many more, in these and other scores.
> >
> > Hmm.  Here's a counterexample that contains `steep' hairpins
> > (cf. page 6 bottom, page 23 bottom, page 24 top, etc., etc.) – and the
> > ends are not vertically aligned.
> >
> >   https://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ReverseLookup/246876
> >
> > The exception, however, is a broken hairpin, page 30 – here I agree
> > that the continuation part should start (or end) vertically aligned.
> > Or may only `could' instead of `should', as for example page 38
> > demonstrates.
> >
> > On the other hand, it probably solely depends on the typesetter:
> > page 40 contains steep hairpins that are all aligned...
> >
> > My conclusion: It could be a useful feature to have the ends of
> > rotated hairpins vertically aligned.  However, I wouldn't like to have
> > this as the default.
> >
> > I'm CCing this e-mail to `bug-lilypond' so that this feature request
> > can be added to our issue database.
> >
> >
> > Werner
>
> I'm a little late to the party this evening...
>
> Though, vertically aligned Hairpins were already discussed (a little)
> during code review of Ferneyhough hairpins
> https://codereview.appspot.com/7615043
> but postponed.
> For an image see comment #2
> I'm pretty sure they could still be implemented. `elbowed-hairpin' has
> it's own limitations, though
>
> Cheers,
>   Harm
>
\version "2.19.80"

#(define (proc-number-or-false? obj)
   (or (procedure? obj)
   (number? obj)
   (eq? obj #f)))

#(define (define-grob-property symbol type? description)
   (if (not (equal? (object-property symbol 'backend-doc) #f))
   (ly:error (_ "symbol ~S redefined") symbol))

   (set-object-property! symbol 'backend-type? type?)
   (set-object-property! symbol 'backend-doc description)
   symbol)

#(map
  (lambda (x)
(apply define-grob-property x))

  `(
 (circled-tip-radius ,number? "Radius for hairpin circled tip")
 (rotate ,proc-number-or-false? "Custom rotation: a number specifies angle in degrees, a procedure will receive the grob and return an angle, #f deactivates rotation")
 (straight-end ,boolean? "Straighten the end of the hairpin when it's rotated?")
 ))


#(define broken-neighbor
   (lambda (grob)
 (let* ((pieces (ly:spanner-broken-into (ly:grob-original grob)))
(me-list (member grob pieces)))
   (if (> (length me-list) 1)
   (cadr me-list)
   '()

#(define (interval-dir-set i val dir)
   (cond ((= dir LEFT) (set-car! i val))
 ((= dir RIGHT) (set-cdr! i val))
 (else (ly:error "dir must be LEFT or RIGHT"

#(define (other-dir dir) (- dir))

#(define hairpin::print-scheme
   (lambda (grob)
 (let ((grow-dir (ly:grob-property grob 'grow-direction)))
   (if (not (ly:dir? grow-dir))
   (begin
(ly:grob-suicide! grob)
'()))
   
   (let* ((padding (ly:grob-property grob 'bound-padding 0.5))
  (bounds (cons (ly:spanner-bound grob LEFT)
(ly:spanner-bound grob RIGHT)))
  (broken (cons
   (not (= (ly:item-break-dir (car bounds)) CENTER))
   (not (= (ly:item-break-dir (cdr bounds)) CENTER)
 
 (if (cdr 

Re: rightHandfinger location; 2 issues.

[Thomas Morley]

2018-02-08 13:28 GMT+01:00 Kale Good :
> Hello,
>
> In the following snippet, I have two issues:
>
> Some chords placed in voice two require one right hand fingering above the
> staff and positioned left-of-default, the other below the staff and
> positioned right-of-default (note: fingerings are already in a #(down up)
> setup; the #(up) part is hidden behind the notehead).
> Right-Hand finger m always sits above the stem, while i and a tend to sit
> next to the stem. This creates an uneven, "peaks and valleys" right-hand
> fingering layout.
>
> For 1): From what I've read, it doesn't seem possible to manually position
> individual elements inside of a chord construct. Is this correct? If so, is
> my best solution to insert a quick \new Voice << {}{} >>  into voice 2? Or
> is there a way to manually position chord elements that I've missed?
>
> For 2): I assume this is because m is a wider element than either i or a. So
> I thought reducing horizontal padding would make it pop in at the same spot
> that i and a tend to sit at. However, nothing I do with \once \override
> fingeringOrientations.outside-staff-horizontal-padding = -1 seems to have
> any effect on it. Am I reduced to using StrokeFinger.padding or, more
> likely, StrokeFinger.extra-offset = #'(0.25 . 0)? I'm hoping this is a
> padding issue so that I can just remove padding or adjust a horizontal
> factor, then Lilypond will (fingers-crossed) place the
>
> Related to 2), how can I ensure that my m, a, and i fingerings are all
> aligned on the same horizontal level (where appropriate) and, in different
> situations? Right now, I've just been eyeballing it. My best guess is that
> this would involve linking the grobs together somehow... but I'm just
> shooting in that dark on that one. I've not had to delve that deep into the
> grob-interface before, and I haven't found anything in the docs that seems
> to suggest this is possible. Maybe I missed it?
>
> As a side-note, why is the default for right-hand fingers to be placed to
> the right of the notehead? I don't ever recall seeing this in any classical
> guitar music I've played (and I've played a lot). In my memory, it's always
> above or to the left. It seems odd to put information you need (which finger
> to use to play a note) after you need it (which note to play). Do other
> instruments do this? Similarly, left-hand fingers are almost always to the
> right (I can imagine them being placed above, but I don't recall any
> situations. However, it looks a lot less bizarre to me than the lilypond
> default for RH notes).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kale
>
> the source material for this example was imported from XML, which was
> created via Audiverus, the Musical OCR (MCR) application. Hence some weird
> part names.
>
> \version "2.18.2"
> \language "english"
> rh = #rightHandFinger
> rhp = -\rightHandFinger #1
> rhi = -\rightHandFinger #2
> rhm = -\rightHandFinger #3
> rha = -\rightHandFinger #4
> rhx = -\rightHandFinger #5
>
> PartPOneVoiceOne =  \relative c {
>   \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)
>   \set strokeFingerOrientations = #'(up)
>   \clef "G_8"
>   \key a \major
>   \time 4/4
>
> 4 r4 4. 8 | % 22
> 2 r4 s4 \bar "|."
> }
>
> PartPOneVoiceTwo =  \relative a, {
>\set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)
>\set strokeFingerOrientations = #'(down)
>\override StrokeFinger.extra-offset = #'(0.25 . 0)
> r4 \once \set strokeFingerOrientations = #'(down up)  cs'-1\rhi>2 |
>\once \set strokeFingerOrientations = #'(down up)  2
> r4 s1
> }
>
> \score {
>   <<
> \new Staff <<
>  \context Staff <<
> \context Voice = "PartPOneVoiceOne" { \voiceOne \PartPOneVoiceOne }
> \context Voice = "PartPOneVoiceThree" { \voiceTwo \PartPOneVoiceTwo
> }
>
>   >>
> >>
>
>   >>
>   \layout {}
> }
>
>
> --
> 
> Kale Good


To answer some of your questions:
For in-chord-adjustments we have the \tweak-command.

In your example I'd be fine with adding
\layout { \context { \Voice \override StrokeFinger.add-stem-support = ##t } }
to the score and dropping the extra-offset.
Admittedly the a-finger is higher than the m-finger, but that's
because of different stem-lengths.
This will always happen ofcourse.

Cheers,
  Harm

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Hans Åberg]

> On 8 Feb 2018, at 15:53, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> Hans Åberg  writes:
> 
>>> On 8 Feb 2018, at 13:53, David Kastrup  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Of course, organs are not
>>> really tuned equally tempered even now, but that's not because of a lack
>>> of competence.  
>> 
>> A factor might be the type of partials available: a Mainstage baroque
>> organ patch does not have any partials besides octaves, meaning that
>> it might be tuned quite freely, as opposed to the modern organ patch,
>> which has a full 5-limit spectrum. (These are recording of real
>> organs.)
> 
> That's not really a consideration: the partial pipes are always tuned in
> pure ratios to the main pipes as their function is for tone color rather
> than harmonic.

I meant the tuning of the main stops. One tried baroque tunings on modern 
organs and found it did not sound nice, but it could because the main pipes 
have more partials than on an baroque organ. Some mutation stops can produce 
the 7th partial, but it is probably not used for harmony.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Change the shape of treble clef

[Ben]

On 2/8/2018 10:53 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:


For me personally, I can definitely say I am happy I bought Cadence: I've 
completely switched over to Cadence as the font for my housestyle. The treble 
clef is the big benefit, but there are also lots of other little improvements 
(to my eye).

Cheers,
Kieren.



I also love the Cadence font, it's a great choice for a house style!

Although I mainly prefer Scorlatti now (my subconscious / eyes just keep 
wanting to gravitate towards SCORE I guess?), both fonts are just 
beautiful...in fact all his fonts are definitely worth checking out.


https://www.musictypefoundry.com/product/mtf-scorlatti

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Change the shape of treble clef

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Karlin (et al.),

> Look at the font examples for Abraham Lee's Cadence, and decide if a 
> different treble clef is worth $39 USD for your purposes or not.

For me personally, I can definitely say I am happy I bought Cadence: I've 
completely switched over to Cadence as the font for my housestyle. The treble 
clef is the big benefit, but there are also lots of other little improvements 
(to my eye).

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Change the shape of treble clef

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Hilary,

Keeps getting wierder. Again different behaviour. Who can know the Mind of
Google?

Anyway, it's an old link that I had that is no longer current (but worked
for me tonight!).

Urs gave the right one.

Glad you like Emmentaler, but others have different qualities, but quite
subtle.


On 8 February 2018 at 18:00, Hilary Snaden  wrote:

> On 08/02/18 06:39, klose wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Thank you for your reply but it looks like the ink is dead?
>>
>
> I get a Google "sign in" page, which IMV is worse than a dead link.
>
> (I'm happy with the Emmentaler font.)
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[David Kastrup]

Hans Åberg  writes:

>> On 8 Feb 2018, at 13:53, David Kastrup  wrote:
>> 
>> Of course, organs are not
>> really tuned equally tempered even now, but that's not because of a lack
>> of competence.  
>
> A factor might be the type of partials available: a Mainstage baroque
> organ patch does not have any partials besides octaves, meaning that
> it might be tuned quite freely, as opposed to the modern organ patch,
> which has a full 5-limit spectrum. (These are recording of real
> organs.)

That's not really a consideration: the partial pipes are always tuned in
pure ratios to the main pipes as their function is for tone color rather
than harmonic.

>> Accordions are tuned by ear by good tuners, and those
>> _are_ equal tempered as a rule.
>
> That is for standard full size accordions.

Well, yes.  Chromatic unisonoric ones in particular.  It would be tricky
to tune to the beating of a tone on the push with a tone on the draw...

Diatonic/bisonoric accordions are a dark art of its own.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Change the shape of treble clef

[Hilary Snaden]

On 08/02/18 06:39, klose wrote:

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for your reply but it looks like the ink is dead?


I get a Google "sign in" page, which IMV is worse than a dead link.

(I'm happy with the Emmentaler font.)


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: lilypond-book: Special characters in filenames using \lilypondfile with LaTeX

[Urs Liska]

Am 08.02.2018 um 11:09 schrieb André Rohrbach:

Hi :)

I use LilyPond in combination with LaTeX since a few weeks and I'm
very happy about this great piece of software!
Yesterday I came across an issue using lilypond-book:



If you are just starting to use LilyPond with LaTeX I suggest you have a 
look at the lyluatex package (https://github.com/jperon/lyluatex), which 
we're currently completing to be a fully compatible with lilypond-book. 
Different from lilypond-book it's not a preprocessor but will handle the 
LilyPond compilation directly from the LaTeX run.

Although it will probably not help you with your issue at hand.

Also https://github.com/uliska/musicexamples might be of interest to you 
- but I will soon make substantial changes to it, also to work with 
lyluatex (means: you are encouraged to have a look at the package but 
shouldn't get too involved with learning it or even using it in real 
documents).



Best
Urs

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: lilypond-book: Special characters in filenames using \lilypondfile with LaTeX

[Br. Samuel Springuel]

Not sure about quotes, but LaTeX, as a rule, hates spaces in filenames. 
They should be avoided at all costs in LaTeX documents.  Even though 
lilypond-book is a preprocessor (and thus not subject to the same 
restrictions), it thus wouldn't surprise me that it is the same way.

--
✝
Br. Samuel, OSB
St. Anselm’s Abbey
Washington, DC
(R. Padraic Springuel)

PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

lilypond-book: Special characters in filenames using \lilypondfile with LaTeX

[André Rohrbach]

Hi :)

I use LilyPond in combination with LaTeX since a few weeks and I'm
very happy about this great piece of software!
Yesterday I came across an issue using lilypond-book:

Just tried to use special characters (mostly spaces and single quotes)
in filenames while working with \lilypondfile.
Tried the following options

\lilypondfile{File 1.ly}
\lilypondfile{File\ 1.ly}
\lilypondfile{"File 1.ly"}
\lilypondfile{'File 1.ly'}

None of my suggestions worked.
Using \lilypondfile with files that don't have special characters in
the filename works without any problems for me.

Is there any possibility to do that kind of stuff or do I really have
to prevent using special characters?

Thanks for your great work!

Andy

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

lilypond-book: Special characters in filenames using \lilypondfile with LaTeX

[André Rohrbach]

Hi :)

I use LilyPond in combination with LaTeX since a few weeks and I'm very
happy about this great piece of software!
Yesterday I came across an issue using lilypond-book:

Just tried to use special characters (mostly spaces and single quotes) in
filenames while working with \lilypondfile.
Tried the following options

\lilypondfile{File 1.ly}
\lilypondfile{File\ 1.ly}
\lilypondfile{"File 1.ly"}
\lilypondfile{'File 1.ly'}

None of my suggestions worked.
Using \lilypondfile with files that don't have special characters in the
filename works without any problems for me.

Is there any possibility to do that kind of stuff or do I really have to
prevent using special characters?

Thanks for your great work!

Andy
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Hans Åberg]

> On 8 Feb 2018, at 13:53, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> Of course, organs are not
> really tuned equally tempered even now, but that's not because of a lack
> of competence.  

A factor might be the type of partials available: a Mainstage baroque organ 
patch does not have any partials besides octaves, meaning that it might be 
tuned quite freely, as opposed to the modern organ patch, which has a full 
5-limit spectrum. (These are recording of real organs.)

> Accordions are tuned by ear by good tuners, and those
> _are_ equal tempered as a rule.

That is for standard full size accordions. In cajun/zydeco music, Just 
Intonation or a meantone is popular. Here is a track with an Arabic music 
microtonal accordion:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvp6fo7tfpk



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Hans Åberg]

> On 8 Feb 2018, at 11:32, N. Andrew Walsh  wrote:
> 
> I agree, and we find even older semi-equal temperaments on instruments from 
> ancient China that also make clear that theorists knew what those tunings 
> were. But the first-hand accounts of theorists and composers (and prior to 
> the 20th century, those two disciplines had a lot more overlap) was that 
> equal temperament sounded bland and uninteresting, and that well temperaments 
> (or any of the vast array of 19th-century meantone derivatives, not to 
> mention the extended temperaments like the one used on the cembalo with 24 
> keys on which a young Mozart [!] was famous for improvising in the courts) 
> were musically superior in every way. 
> 
> Musicians at the time certainly *knew* what equal temperament was, even if 
> they couldn't reach it exactly, and the fact that almost none of them 
> advocated for it on musical grounds tells you all you need to know about what 
> the "old masters" thought of it.

Another factor is in what type of environment the music is performed. Western 
art music is played mostly indoors in halls with wet acoustics, i.e., long 
reverberation time, may have poor transmission of bass, requiring many 
instruments playing together to full it out. This pushes it towards Just 
Intonation and the major triads, where the difference tones help to fill out 
the bass.

By contrast, gamelan music is typically played outdoors, and there is no 
essential harmony, so one can fairly freely choose the tuning.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Hans Åberg]

> On 8 Feb 2018, at 11:26, N. Andrew Walsh  wrote:
> 
> please note the qualifier "in the 18th century." The technological means to 
> tune *exact* equal temperament weren't available until around the 1830s, and 
> weren't in widespread use until later in the
> 19th, and only universal in the 20th, centuries.

Later, 1917, according to this link.
 http://www.kylegann.com/histune.html

> Beethoven, for example, kept several cembalos in his studio, all tuned 
> differently, and would hold parties where he'd improvise on them in 
> succession to demonstrate their different affect. In fact, there is a mammoth 
> study on 19th century temperaments (with the equally gargantuan title 
> "Tuning: Containing the Perfection of Eighteenth-Century Temperament, the 
> Lost Art of Nineteenth-Century Temperament and the Science of Equal 
> Temperament," which if anybody on the list has and would be willing to sell 
> me, please contact me privately!). 

It might have been better to have keyboards closer to what orchestras play.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Hans Åberg]

> On 8 Feb 2018, at 11:26, N. Andrew Walsh  wrote:
>  
> please note the qualifier "in the 18th century." The technological means to 
> tune *exact* equal temperament weren't available until around the 1830s, and 
> weren't in widespread use until later in the
> 19th, and only universal in the 20th, centuries.

Later, 1917, according to this link.
  http://www.kylegann.com/histune.html

> Beethoven, for example, kept several cembalos in his studio, all tuned 
> differently, and would hold parties where he'd improvise on them in 
> succession to demonstrate their different affect. In fact, there is a mammoth 
> study on 19th century temperaments (with the equally gargantuan title 
> "Tuning: Containing the Perfection of Eighteenth-Century Temperament, the 
> Lost Art of Nineteenth-Century Temperament and the Science of Equal 
> Temperament," which if anybody on the list has and would be willing to sell 
> me, please contact me privately!). 

It might have been better to have keyboards closer to what orchestras play.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[shane]

Organ's can be tuned equally with ease, although it is fairly time intensive. 
(A midsize instrument, say 25 stops, will take about 8 hrs. to do) It is not a 
lack of competence but a general lack of consistent temperature that frequently 
gives the general tuning fuzziness to the organ. It is a very temperature 
dependent creature for sure. I played on one for awhile that come winter was 
irrittingly out of tune for the first 10 minutes of the service as the organ 
chamber did not warm nearly as fast as the rest of the building. By the end of 
the service it sounded very decent. There have been others that have been just 
as adversely affected by the immense amount of heat the lighting systems put 
out so by the end of the service the reeds were always a risky proposition. 
-Shane


Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
 Original message From: David Kastrup  Date: 
2/8/18  7:53 AM  (GMT-05:00) To: "N. Andrew Walsh"  
Cc: lilypond-user  Subject: Re: Gis major key signature; 
Lily's key signature algorithm 
"N. Andrew Walsh"  writes:

> Hi David,
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:39 AM, David Kastrup  wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't be silly.  Equal temperament most certainly is not
>> "technologically impossible".
>
>
> please note the qualifier "in the 18th century." The technological
> means to tune *exact* equal temperament weren't available until around
> the 1830s,

There are no "technological means".  Professional tuners of a number of
instruments tune by _ear_ after tuning a single note (which is
independent from temperament) to a reference.  Of course, organs are not
really tuned equally tempered even now, but that's not because of a lack
of competence.  Accordions are tuned by ear by good tuners, and those
_are_ equal tempered as a rule.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Change the shape of treble clef

[Simon Albrecht]

On 08.02.2018 05:40, Shane Brandes wrote:

What is it you don't like about that glyph? Your not the only person
who has said as much and I have yet to hear a decent explanation.


I think it’s simply a very characteristic glyph, one that sticks out and 
goes beyond the ordinary, and as such it’s going to solicit diverging 
opinions depending on taste.


Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[David Kastrup]

"N. Andrew Walsh"  writes:

> Hi David,
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:39 AM, David Kastrup  wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't be silly.  Equal temperament most certainly is not
>> "technologically impossible".
>
>
> please note the qualifier "in the 18th century." The technological
> means to tune *exact* equal temperament weren't available until around
> the 1830s,

There are no "technological means".  Professional tuners of a number of
instruments tune by _ear_ after tuning a single note (which is
independent from temperament) to a reference.  Of course, organs are not
really tuned equally tempered even now, but that's not because of a lack
of competence.  Accordions are tuned by ear by good tuners, and those
_are_ equal tempered as a rule.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Change the shape of treble clef

[Karlin High]

On 2/8/2018 12:51 AM, klose wrote:

Thank you but they are not free. Any manuals explaining how to do it by
myself?


Look at the font examples for Abraham Lee's Cadence, and decide if a 
different treble clef is worth $39 USD for your purposes or not.


https://www.musictypefoundry.com/product/mtf-cadence

Those come with installation instructions, apparently.

https://www.musictypefoundry.com/installation#lilypond

There is also a GitHub site with LilyPond fonts. It seems to have font 
versions from 2014.


https://github.com/OpenLilyPondFonts
https://github.com/OpenLilyPondFonts/cadence

The LilyPond Notation Reference manual has some instructions for 
changing the font.


http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/replacing-the-notation-font
--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

rightHandfinger location; 2 issues.

[Kale Good]

Hello,

In the following snippet, I have two issues:

1. Some chords placed in voice two require one right hand fingering
   above the staff and positioned left-of-default, the other below the
   staff and positioned right-of-default (note: fingerings are already
   in a #(down up) setup; the #(up) part is hidden behind the notehead).
2. Right-Hand finger /m/ always sits above the stem, while /i/ and /a/
   tend to sit next to the stem. This creates an uneven, "peaks and
   valleys" right-hand fingering layout.

For 1): From what I've read, it doesn't seem possible to manually 
position individual elements inside of a chord construct. Is this 
correct? If so, is my best solution to insert a quick//*\new Voice << 
{}{} >>* into voice 2? Or is there a way to manually position chord 
elements that I've missed?


For 2): I assume this is because /m/ is a wider element than either /i/ 
or /a/. So I thought reducing horizontal padding would make it pop in at 
the same spot that /i/ and /a/ tend to sit at. //However, nothing I do 
with *\once \override 
fingeringOrientations.outside-staff-horizontal-padding = -1* seems to 
have any effect on it. Am I reduced to using *StrokeFinger.padding* or, 
more likely, *StrokeFinger.extra-offset = #'(0.25 . 0)*? I'm hoping this 
is a padding issue so that I can just remove padding or adjust a 
horizontal factor, then Lilypond will (fingers-crossed) place the


Related to 2), how can I ensure that my /m/, /a, /and /i/ fingerings are 
all aligned on the same horizontal level (where appropriate) and, in 
different situations? Right now, I've just been eyeballing it. My best 
guess is that this would involve linking the grobs together somehow... 
but I'm just shooting in that dark on that one. I've not had to delve 
that deep into the grob-interface before, and I haven't found anything 
in the docs that seems to suggest this is possible. Maybe I missed it?


As a side-note, why is the default for right-hand fingers to be placed 
to the right of the notehead? I don't ever recall seeing this in any 
classical guitar music I've played (and I've played /a lot). /In my 
memory, it's always above or to the left. It seems odd to put 
information you need (which finger to use to play a note) after you need 
it (which note to play). Do other instruments do this? Similarly, 
left-hand fingers are almost always to the right (I can imagine them 
being placed above, but I don't recall any situations. However, it looks 
a lot less bizarre to me than the lilypond default for RH notes).


Thanks,

Kale

the source material for this example was imported from XML, which was 
created via Audiverus, the Musical OCR (MCR) application. Hence some 
weird part names.


\version "2.18.2"
\language "english"
rh = #rightHandFinger
rhp = -\rightHandFinger #1
rhi = -\rightHandFinger #2
rhm = -\rightHandFinger #3
rha = -\rightHandFinger #4
rhx = -\rightHandFinger #5

PartPOneVoiceOne =  \relative c {
  \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)
  \set strokeFingerOrientations = #'(up)
  \clef "G_8"
  \key a \major
  \time 4/4

    4 r4 4. 8 | % 22
    2 r4 s4 \bar "|."
}

PartPOneVoiceTwo =  \relative a, {
   \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)
   \set strokeFingerOrientations = #'(down)
   \override StrokeFinger.extra-offset = #'(0.25 . 0)
    r4 \once \set strokeFingerOrientations = #'(down up) 
2 |
   \once \set strokeFingerOrientations = #'(down up)  2 r4 s1

}

\score {
  <<
    \new Staff <<
 \context Staff <<
    \context Voice = "PartPOneVoiceOne" { \voiceOne \PartPOneVoiceOne }
    \context Voice = "PartPOneVoiceThree" { \voiceTwo 
\PartPOneVoiceTwo }


  >>
    >>

  >>
  \layout {}
}


--

Kale Good
Good Music Academy  ♫
4705 Baltimore Ave, Phila, PA 19143
phone: (215)260-5383

Facebook 
Google+ 
Read my article "The Seven Secrets to Six String Success 
" 
at GuitarNoise.com 


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi bb,

Don't react like that. You are very welcome here. But this is a list of
generally serious minded folk, and many very learned musical practitioners,
so you will always get a good and sometimes intense discussion, with no
nonsense brooked! This is all for the good.

Do stay. This list is an incredibly precious resource. Nobody would ever
kick you out.

Andrew



On 8 February 2018 at 22:23, bb  wrote:

>
>
> Have fun, I am out and discard from the list.
> Regards
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[bb]

Am 08.02.2018 um 10:16 schrieb David Kastrup:

Blöchl Bernhard  writes:


Am 08.02.2018 01:08, schrieb Urs Liska:

Am 07.02.2018 um 22:56 schrieb Blöchl Bernhard:

If one is only playing the notes of the sheet is this really
important?


YES!


Not in equally tempered scale. All that feelings of keys refer to the
historic tunings.

Not unless you are playing from piano roll notation, tablature or any
other notation omitting functional scale steps.

Our whole harmonic system is designed around scales.  Something like

{
   4|   2 |
   4|   2 |
}

sounds perfectly natural to us even though the thirds are
major, minor, minor, major, major.  Try figuring this out as semitone
intervals without referring to a scale (as a chromatic button accordion
player which _has_ a uniform keyboard I know what I am talking about).


And by the way, do you know that Bachs "Wohltemperierte Klavier" was
written just to show how awfull that sounds in the ears of musicians
of taht time? (I heard that in my side studies to physics in the Music
Academie and you find that theory on the net as well.)

You'll find a lot of "theories" on the net.  "Wohltemperirt" does not
refer to equal temperament.  It also does not refer to meantone
temperament.

Agree!

I forgot that Johann Sebastian Bachs Equal Temperament (he is sayed to 
be prononent of) was an unequal Well Temperament and not the equally 
tempered one of our days. (Historically there are two important reports 
of that, one by Werkmeister and one by Kirnberger, may be more?)
It is likely that he tuned his fifths justly (i.e. pure), that is easy 
and fast. (Forkel, Johann Nikolaus, Ueber Johann Sebastian Bachs Lebens, 
Kunst und Kunstwerke, Leipzig. 1802; facs. ed., Frankfurt, 1950; English 
trans., London 1820.
Forkel writes therein that  J. S. Bach always tuned his own keyboard and 
he needed not more than fifteen minutes.)
Kirnberger, one of Bachs pupils required to tune all the thirds sharp 
(do not have the source present actually - I think to remember.
I am sure many will disagree in future mails and indeed one finds 
different (lots of) reports and publications about. Historic tunings are 
an interesting topic to discuss and I appreciate the discussion going 
on. But I will jump out of this thread, even if I am wrong in some 
points  to do my other interesting work.


I never was a piano player, I play only different stringed instruments 
as a hobbyist, fretted and unfretted. But I know all that discussions 
from my pianist girlfriend, was a happy time, but long time past and gone.

To prevent myself from senseless discussions as a music hobbyist I
will ignore future discussions of the experts.

A discussion implies listening.  Without listening, it's just a shouting
match.  I have the feeling that communication in English is making it
hard for you to get and make points.  That might make a German LilyPond
user forum a better target for informal banter and would still leave the
English list for getting solutions when the German-speaking community
runs out of expertise.

As I already wrote above, I follow your recommendation and jump out of 
threads concerning musical interpretational discussions. My English is 
not precise enough for discussions about musical interpretation. But 
sorry, to discuss feelings of keys per se in the light of equally 
temperament is beyond my understanding, not to say nonsense and not a 
question of the quality of my English. (That "feeling" indeed was true 
for ancient tunings. Believe in that - I do not!) I had this discussions 
quite often at the Music Academy. What left using equally tempered 
tuning are TENSIONS between chords and the progression of chords alone.


I think for matters concerning use of lilypond my English is good enough 
and I discuss scientific physical matters in English without having 
problems so far.


Have fun, I am out and discard from the list.
Regards


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[N. Andrew Walsh]

oh :(

alas! It looked so interesting from the description and the one time I
flipped through it.

Well then! I can strike that rather expensive bauble off my wish-list in
that case, and move on to others.

Cheers,

A

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Andrew Bernard 
wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> That's the Jorgensen book. Has been generally discredited in most
> respects. [There are other lists where this has been hashed out very
> thoroughly.] Sorry! [Way too OT to go into the reasons here.]
>
> Readily available on Amazon and so on.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On 8 February 2018 at 21:26, N. Andrew Walsh 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> . In fact, there is a mammoth study on 19th century temperaments (with
>> the equally gargantuan title "Tuning: Containing the Perfection of
>> Eighteenth-Century Temperament, the Lost Art of Nineteenth-Century
>> Temperament and the Science of Equal Temperament," which if anybody on the
>> list has and would be willing to sell me, please contact me privately!).
>>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Andrew,

That's the Jorgensen book. Has been generally discredited in most respects.
[There are other lists where this has been hashed out very thoroughly.]
Sorry! [Way too OT to go into the reasons here.]

Readily available on Amazon and so on.

Andrew


On 8 February 2018 at 21:26, N. Andrew Walsh 
wrote:

>
> . In fact, there is a mammoth study on 19th century temperaments (with the
> equally gargantuan title "Tuning: Containing the Perfection of
> Eighteenth-Century Temperament, the Lost Art of Nineteenth-Century
> Temperament and the Science of Equal Temperament," which if anybody on the
> list has and would be willing to sell me, please contact me privately!).
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[N. Andrew Walsh]

I agree, and we find even older semi-equal temperaments on instruments from
ancient China that also make clear that theorists knew what those tunings
were. But the first-hand accounts of theorists and composers (and prior to
the 20th century, those two disciplines had a lot more overlap) was that
equal temperament sounded bland and uninteresting, and that well
temperaments (or any of the vast array of 19th-century meantone
derivatives, not to mention the extended temperaments like the one used on
the cembalo with 24 keys on which a young Mozart [!] was famous for
improvising in the courts) were musically superior in every way.

Musicians at the time certainly *knew* what equal temperament was, even if
they couldn't reach it exactly, and the fact that almost none of them
advocated for it on musical grounds tells you all you need to know about
what the "old masters" thought of it.

-A

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Hans Åberg  wrote:

>
>
> > On 8 Feb 2018, at 10:39, David Kastrup  wrote:
> >
> > "N. Andrew Walsh"  writes:
> >
> >> It is entirely acceptable to be a music hobbyist who enjoys a passing
> >> familiarity with the classical tradition and is largely uninterested
> >> in more … esoteric discussions of theory. It is absolutely *not* all
> >> right to be spreading historical inaccuracies of this sort. The WTC is
> >> extensively researched and discussed in musicological and historical
> >> circles, sometimes heatedly, but the idea that Bach wrote it to prove
> >> that Well Temperament sounded "awful" (or the much worse assertion,
> >> that he wrote it to demonstrate *equal* temperament, a technological
> >> and historical impossibility in the 18th century)
> >
> > Don't be silly.  Equal temperament most certainly is not
> > "technologically impossible".  Tuners of organs and accordions versed in
> > their art work by tuning a circle of fifths in a reference octave by
> > getting the proper sequence of beatings corresponding to the desired
> > temperament, then tune the other octaves in reference.
>
> The first effective E12 tunings for piano arrived in the early 1900s—the
> idea was present in Ancient Greece, and something like it was used on
> lutes. A lot of tunings were studied using monochords, but they are too
> crude for the required fine tuning. So if equal temperament was
> technologically possible earlier, perhaps they did not see any point in it:
> a method to play equally harmonically bad in all keys.
>
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[N. Andrew Walsh]

Hi David,

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:39 AM, David Kastrup  wrote:

>
> Don't be silly.  Equal temperament most certainly is not
> "technologically impossible".


please note the qualifier "in the 18th century." The technological means to
tune *exact* equal temperament weren't available until around the 1830s,
and weren't in widespread use until later in the 19th, and only universal
in the 20th, centuries. Beethoven, for example, kept several cembalos in
his studio, all tuned differently, and would hold parties where he'd
improvise on them in succession to demonstrate their different affect. In
fact, there is a mammoth study on 19th century temperaments (with the
equally gargantuan title "Tuning: Containing the Perfection of
Eighteenth-Century Temperament, the Lost Art of Nineteenth-Century
Temperament and the Science of Equal Temperament," which if anybody on the
list has and would be willing to sell me, please contact me privately!).

Tuning by ear was certainly possible, and as that book notes, there was a
distinct art to it, much like how the rest of your message describes. But
again, the question of whether equal temperament was something those
composers actually wanted to hear (leaving aside the question of whether
any of them did or had the means to do so) is a question of historical
fact, and from their writings we find the answer almost universally in the
negative.

-A
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Hans Åberg]

> On 8 Feb 2018, at 10:39, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> "N. Andrew Walsh"  writes:
> 
>> It is entirely acceptable to be a music hobbyist who enjoys a passing
>> familiarity with the classical tradition and is largely uninterested
>> in more … esoteric discussions of theory. It is absolutely *not* all
>> right to be spreading historical inaccuracies of this sort. The WTC is
>> extensively researched and discussed in musicological and historical
>> circles, sometimes heatedly, but the idea that Bach wrote it to prove
>> that Well Temperament sounded "awful" (or the much worse assertion,
>> that he wrote it to demonstrate *equal* temperament, a technological
>> and historical impossibility in the 18th century)
> 
> Don't be silly.  Equal temperament most certainly is not
> "technologically impossible".  Tuners of organs and accordions versed in
> their art work by tuning a circle of fifths in a reference octave by
> getting the proper sequence of beatings corresponding to the desired
> temperament, then tune the other octaves in reference.

The first effective E12 tunings for piano arrived in the early 1900s—the idea 
was present in Ancient Greece, and something like it was used on lutes. A lot 
of tunings were studied using monochords, but they are too crude for the 
required fine tuning. So if equal temperament was technologically possible 
earlier, perhaps they did not see any point in it: a method to play equally 
harmonically bad in all keys.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Hans Åberg]

> On 8 Feb 2018, at 10:39, David Kastrup  wrote:
> 
> "N. Andrew Walsh"  writes:
> 
>> It is entirely acceptable to be a music hobbyist who enjoys a passing
>> familiarity with the classical tradition and is largely uninterested
>> in more … esoteric discussions of theory. It is absolutely *not* all
>> right to be spreading historical inaccuracies of this sort. The WTC is
>> extensively researched and discussed in musicological and historical
>> circles, sometimes heatedly, but the idea that Bach wrote it to prove
>> that Well Temperament sounded "awful" (or the much worse assertion,
>> that he wrote it to demonstrate *equal* temperament, a technological
>> and historical impossibility in the 18th century)
> 
> Don't be silly.  Equal temperament most certainly is not
> "technologically impossible".  Tuners of organs and accordions versed in
> their art work by tuning a circle of fifths in a reference octave by
> getting the proper sequence of beatings corresponding to the desired
> temperament, then tune the other octaves in reference.

The first effective E12 tunings for piano arrived in the early 1900s—the idea 
was present in Ancient Greece, and something like it was used on lutes. A lot 
of tunings were studied using monochords, but they are too crude for the 
required fine tuning. So if equal temperament was technologically possible 
earlier, perhaps they did not see any point in it: a method to play equally 
harmonically bad in all keys.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Hans Åberg]

> On 8 Feb 2018, at 01:59, Andrew Bernard  wrote:
> 
> Good question, and lots of good answers. Modern practice is to follow the 
> order of the circle of fifths. But that was not always the case. So, indeed, 
> depends on your historical context. Bach was writing in G sharp for the WTC, 
> and it was most certainly not intended to be enharmonic with A flat. But if 
> you look at18C manuscripts and JS Bach in particular there is wide variance 
> in how key signatures were done, and Bach often repeated the notes in the 
> signature, say having two c sharps, for reasons of his own (quite interesting 
> to see). Obviously his music teacher would fail him today. This was before 
> the age of standardization of everything.

The key signature was a way to simplify notation, not to actually indicate the 
key of the musical piece-there examples where they do not agree. There is a 
similar problem with Balkan music: it may be useful to write a nonstandard key 
to simplify the ornaments in LilyPond which cannot handle them as intervals, 
but if the ornaments are very chromatic, an appropriate key signature will not 
help.

> So I would discard advice about rewriting in A flat. G sharp is perfectly 
> good, even though the textbooks call it a 'theoretical key' - what they mean 
> is that it is hard to read when an alternative is available in an equal 
> tempered context. As Urs has said, there are plenty of valid musical contexts 
> for a key such as G sharp.

Blatter suggests to do it for a harp, because otherwise the harpist will have 
to do it, which adds to the performance cost.

> Since lilypond gives you the ability to change the ordering in the key 
> signature, you ahve complete freedom in what you do.
> 
> Nothing new here, but I just wanted to chime in on this interesting topic.

There is an additional complexity with microtonal accents, say like in Persian 
dastgah. It is indeed interesting what a good default might be.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Hans Åberg]

> On 8 Feb 2018, at 01:59, Andrew Bernard  wrote:
> 
> Good question, and lots of good answers. Modern practice is to follow the 
> order of the circle of fifths. But that was not always the case. So, indeed, 
> depends on your historical context. Bach was writing in G sharp for the WTC, 
> and it was most certainly not intended to be enharmonic with A flat. But if 
> you look at18C manuscripts and JS Bach in particular there is wide variance 
> in how key signatures were done, and Bach often repeated the notes in the 
> signature, say having two c sharps, for reasons of his own (quite interesting 
> to see). Obviously his music teacher would fail him today. This was before 
> the age of standardization of everything.

The key signature was a way to simplify notation, not to actually indicate the 
key of the musical piece-there examples where they do not agree. There is a 
similar problem with Balkan music: it may be useful to write a nonstandard key 
to simplify the ornaments in LilyPond which cannot handle them as intervals, 
but if the ornaments are very chromatic, an appropriate key signature will not 
help.

> So I would discard advice about rewriting in A flat. G sharp is perfectly 
> good, even though the textbooks call it a 'theoretical key' - what they mean 
> is that it is hard to read when an alternative is available in an equal 
> tempered context. As Urs has said, there are plenty of valid musical contexts 
> for a key such as G sharp.

Blatter suggests to do it for a harp, because otherwise the harpist will have 
to do it, which adds to the performance cost.

> Since lilypond gives you the ability to change the ordering in the key 
> signature, you ahve complete freedom in what you do.
> 
> Nothing new here, but I just wanted to chime in on this interesting topic.

There is an additional complexity with microtonal accents, say like in Persian 
dastgah. It is indeed interesting what a good default might be.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[David Kastrup]

"N. Andrew Walsh"  writes:

> It is entirely acceptable to be a music hobbyist who enjoys a passing
> familiarity with the classical tradition and is largely uninterested
> in more … esoteric discussions of theory. It is absolutely *not* all
> right to be spreading historical inaccuracies of this sort. The WTC is
> extensively researched and discussed in musicological and historical
> circles, sometimes heatedly, but the idea that Bach wrote it to prove
> that Well Temperament sounded "awful" (or the much worse assertion,
> that he wrote it to demonstrate *equal* temperament, a technological
> and historical impossibility in the 18th century)

Don't be silly.  Equal temperament most certainly is not
"technologically impossible".  Tuners of organs and accordions versed in
their art work by tuning a circle of fifths in a reference octave by
getting the proper sequence of beatings corresponding to the desired
temperament, then tune the other octaves in reference.

Meantone temperament is a bit different in that you walk a "circle of
major thirds" and distribute the tuning error across certain thirds
instead of across certain fifths like most well-tempered tunings do, or
even across _all_ fifths like equal temperant does.

Electronic tuners have been around for much much shorter times and are
usually not employed by experts since they waste the tuner's precision
on _absolute_ pitch references rather than the _relative_ references
important to hearing because they cause the beat frequencies.

If you get a fifth off by 0.5cent, the beating to one of its neighboring
fifths will be almost double (5/3) the beatings to its other neighboring
fifths, assuming those are totally accurate.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Blöchl,

Speaking as a harpsichordist myself, with a background in maths and
theoretical physics, and consequently a lifelong student of tuning and
temperaments, what you say is a little unusual in that a majority of
scholars and musicians believe the Well Tempered Clavier was written to
establish quite the opposite - that compositions can be made in all the
keys and when an appropriate temperament is chosen - not equal temperament,
that idea re WTC has been discarded long ago - pieces can be played
effectively and well tuned, without offence to the ear, and furthermore the
well tempered circulating temperaments of the 18C do indeed show different
affekt and colour due to the maths of the tuning and relative tempering
amounts of fifths and thirds and how they are distributed.

The title page says:

Das Wohltemperirte Clavier oder Præludia, und Fugen durch alle Tone und
Semitonia, so wohl tertiam majorem oder Ut Re Mi anlangend, als auch
tertiam minorem oder Re Mi Fa betreffend. Zum Nutzen und Gebrauch der
Lehrbegierigen Musicalischen Jugend, als auch derer in diesem studio schon
habil seyenden besonderem Zeitvertreib auffgesetzet und verfertiget von
Johann Sebastian Bach. p. t: Hochfürstlich Anhalt-Cöthenischen
Capel-Meistern und Directore derer Camer Musiquen. Anno 1722.

The well-tempered Clavier, or Preludes and Fugues through all the tones and
semitones, both as regards the tertiam majorem or Ut Re Mi [i.e., major]
and tertiam minorem or Re Mi Fa [i.e., minor]. For the profit and use of
the studious musical young, and also for the special diversion of those who
are already skilful in this study, composed and made by Johann Sebastian
Bach, for the time being Capellmeister and Director of the Chamber-music of
the Prince of Anhalt-Cothen. In the year 1722.

While it does not state the intention to show all keys are playable, it
most certainly does not indicate any intention to show how horrid G sharp
major would sound. In fact, the very title 'Well Tempered' indicates it is
a demonstration of what well tempering can do - allow all keys, major and
minor, which meantone systems cannot. As to what tuning system JSB was
advocating, it is hard to say, but my money lies with the Lehmann solution,
a very nice well tempering, whether Bach intended that exact recipe or not.

I have never seen reference on the internet to WTC being intended as a
demonstration of how bad certain keys sound. Every historical tuning
treatise was an effort to increase and improve the number of usable keys
over time. So I beg to respectfully differ with your claim.

I do note also that when this topic came up I immediately thought your
context, then unstated, must have been 18C practice, predating ET.

This is probably off topic by now, and we should move to a tuning list!

By the way, have a look at the Digital Bach Archive and see how Bach writes
the key signatures in the WTC. It's interesting. Also note that almost all
the pieces have the right hand predominantly in the soprano clef, not
treble. There is only one modern edition that dares to do this, as far as I
know!

When I get time I intend to make my own scholarly edition of the WTC with
the proper original clefs, using lilypond (to come back on topic!)

Andrew



On 8 February 2018 at 19:38, Blöchl Bernhard <
b_120902342...@telecolumbus.net> wrote:

>
> Not in equally tempered scale. All that feelings of keys refer to the
> historic tunings. And by the way, do you know that Bachs "Wohltemperierte
> Klavier" was written just to show how awfull that sounds in the ears of
> musicians of taht time? (I heard that in my side studies to physics in the
> Music Academie and you find that theory on the net as well.)
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[N. Andrew Walsh]

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:38 AM, Blöchl Bernhard <
b_120902342...@telecolumbus.net> wrote:

>
> Not in equally tempered scale. All that feelings of keys refer to the
> historic tunings. And by the way, do you know that Bachs "Wohltemperierte
> Klavier" was written just to show how awfull that sounds in the ears of
> musicians of taht time? (I heard that in my side studies to physics in the
> Music Academie and you find that theory on the net as well.)
>

It is entirely acceptable to be a music hobbyist who enjoys a passing
familiarity with the classical tradition and is largely uninterested in
more … esoteric discussions of theory. It is absolutely *not* all right to
be spreading historical inaccuracies of this sort. The WTC is extensively
researched and discussed in musicological and historical circles, sometimes
heatedly, but the idea that Bach wrote it to prove that Well Temperament
sounded "awful" (or the much worse assertion, that he wrote it to
demonstrate *equal* temperament, a technological and historical
impossibility in the 18th century) is patently, flatly wrong. This isn't a
question of experts vs. the lay public, it is an unambiguous misstatement
of fact that serves no end but to muddy the discussion (and even to
diminish our appreciation, even as hobbyists, of what is arguably a
historically important, and artistically "good" piece of music). More to
the point, to say that none of this matters because we use equal
temperament now is not even correct from the perspective of modern
practice. It might certainly be the case in dodecaphonic or free atonal
music that the question of note spelling is largely a practical one, but in
almost any other case musical considerations can't be avoided, and your
argument that people *shouldn't* care about these questions dismisses a
whole part of music that matters to people (myself included, and I don't
even *use* flats and sharps) a great deal. Please refrain.

Instead of blithely spreading ignorance, please exercise some humility
about the limits of your knowledge (something I, whom you would probably
regard as some kind of "expert" for no other reason than because that's my
degree, freely admit about myself [namely, that I know extremely little and
could do to know more]), and make use of any of the numerous texts that can
provide a good overview of the WTC, or music history/theory in general,
accessible and enjoyable even to the hobbyist.


To prevent myself from senseless discussions as a music hobbyist I will
> ignore future discussions of the experts. I do not think that makes sense
> on the basis of equally tempered scale that disturbes any musical feelings.
> Therefor I like string quartets!


What does this even mean?  The implication is that a hobbyist's level of
understanding is not only desirable, but that being an "expert" somehow
diminishes a love of music (you might write this equally well as, "I'm not
going to waste time on pointless academic debate; I just want to enjoy
music!"), which is not only arguably wrong as a question of fact, but is
both insulting to the people who have dedicated their lives and careers to
the pursuit, and implies a contempt in general of, well, "knowing things."
Again, please refrain.

This was a discussion about a simple matter of how Lily orders accidentals
in a key signature, and from your very first reply you dismiss the
discussion as unimportant, and argue that people shouldn't bother with it,
because your hobbyist's understanding, it seems to be your view, should be
enough. In the future, please don't walk into discussions on topics which
you yourself admit aren't of interest to you and muddle them. It doesn't
help anybody, and causes a lot of unnecessary unpleasantness.

-A
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[David Kastrup]

Blöchl Bernhard  writes:

> Am 08.02.2018 01:08, schrieb Urs Liska:
>> Am 07.02.2018 um 22:56 schrieb Blöchl Bernhard:
>>>
>>> If one is only playing the notes of the sheet is this really
>>> important?
>>>
>>
>> YES!
>>
>
> Not in equally tempered scale. All that feelings of keys refer to the
> historic tunings.

Not unless you are playing from piano roll notation, tablature or any
other notation omitting functional scale steps.

Our whole harmonic system is designed around scales.  Something like

{
  4|   2 |
  4|   2 |
}

sounds perfectly natural to us even though the thirds are
major, minor, minor, major, major.  Try figuring this out as semitone
intervals without referring to a scale (as a chromatic button accordion
player which _has_ a uniform keyboard I know what I am talking about).

> And by the way, do you know that Bachs "Wohltemperierte Klavier" was
> written just to show how awfull that sounds in the ears of musicians
> of taht time? (I heard that in my side studies to physics in the Music
> Academie and you find that theory on the net as well.)

You'll find a lot of "theories" on the net.  "Wohltemperirt" does not
refer to equal temperament.  It also does not refer to meantone
temperament.

> To prevent myself from senseless discussions as a music hobbyist I
> will ignore future discussions of the experts.

A discussion implies listening.  Without listening, it's just a shouting
match.  I have the feeling that communication in English is making it
hard for you to get and make points.  That might make a German LilyPond
user forum a better target for informal banter and would still leave the
English list for getting solutions when the German-speaking community
runs out of expertise.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm

[Blöchl Bernhard]

Am 08.02.2018 01:08, schrieb Urs Liska:

Am 07.02.2018 um 22:56 schrieb Blöchl Bernhard:
If you use equally tempered scale f♭ major is really identical with e 
major. (That is not true in just tempered tuning.) May be with my 
limited knowledge of music I misunderstood something?


Maybe you should start sudying music as an artistic and historical
matter instead of just an abstract or mathematical model.



Schwanengesang has 4 ♭s. Concerning to the circle of fifth that is f 
minor or a♭ major. That is not the same as f♭ major as mentioned in 
the original mail?


If you can't even tell if that song is in a flat major or f minor you
shouldn't even start discussing this.
Apart from that I already explained that this song's main key is a
flat major and that it moves on to reach f flat minor (as a sudominant
to c flat major) at a certain moment.

My point was that this f flat minor seventh chord is really f flat
minor and not e minor.



If one is doing functional harmony and stacking thirds, indeed f minor 
and a♭ major it is different, producing different chord progressions 
because starting with f or with a♭ major respectively. So the 
Schwanengaesang needs some investigation and harmonic analysis to make 
clear the used key, f minor and a♭ major. Skilled musicians (I am not) 
might do that.


To give some beginner-level hints: The song starts with an a flat
major chord, ends with an a flat major chord, and has a key signature
of four flats. So adventurous spirits might consider putting a bet on
one out of the two candidates.



If one is only playing the notes of the sheet is this really 
important?




YES!



Not in equally tempered scale. All that feelings of keys refer to the 
historic tunings. And by the way, do you know that Bachs 
"Wohltemperierte Klavier" was written just to show how awfull that 
sounds in the ears of musicians of taht time? (I heard that in my side 
studies to physics in the Music Academie and you find that theory on the 
net as well.)



To prevent myself from senseless discussions as a music hobbyist I will 
ignore future discussions of the experts. I do not think that makes 
sense on the basis of equally tempered scale that disturbes any musical 
feelings. Therefor I like string quartets!





Am 07.02.2018 22:18, schrieb Urs Liska:

Am 07.02.2018 um 21:13 schrieb Blöchl Bernhard:

You mention f♭? Then you get a double ♭!
"
{\key fes \major c d e}

You go better with

{\key e \major c d e}

That double crosses and double ♭s happen frequently if you 
transcripe music. in this cases it's better to use the circle of 
fifth/fourth, however you might call it.




Wow, quite a bold statement, given that we have no clue about the
historical context of the original poster's question.
I'd always argue that depending on the style (actually most European
music from the 18th until far into the 20th century) E major is 
worlds

apart from Fes major (and with "worlds" I really mean heaven/earth,
life/death, dream/reality, whatever you want).

My favourite example is in Schubert's song Schwangesang D 744
(http://imslp.org/wiki/Schwanengesang,_D.744_(Schubert,_Franz) ).
The song is in a flat major, then turns to the darker mood of the
variant a flat minor and its parallel c flat major (both six flats)
and then reaches an absolute anticlimax on the word "auflösend"
(meaning: life is dissolving) on the minor subdominant: a fes minor
seventh chord (=>  in LilyPond language)!
There's no way this could ever make sense in e minor.
But what makes even *less* sense is the helpless rendering of the
original edition:  (the d even being "resolved" to des).

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user