Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
> On 8 Feb 2018, at 15:53, David Kastrupwrote: > > 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: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
Hans Åbergwrites: >> 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: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
> On 8 Feb 2018, at 13:53, David Kastrupwrote: > > 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
> On 8 Feb 2018, at 11:32, N. Andrew Walshwrote: > > 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
> On 8 Feb 2018, at 11:26, N. Andrew Walshwrote: > > 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
> On 8 Feb 2018, at 11:26, N. Andrew Walshwrote: > > 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
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 <d...@gnu.org> Date: 2/8/18 7:53 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "N. Andrew Walsh" <n.andrew.wa...@gmail.com> Cc: lilypond-user <lilypond-user@gnu.org> Subject: Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm "N. Andrew Walsh" <n.andrew.wa...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi David, > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:39 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> 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: 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
Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
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, bbwrote: > > > 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
Am 08.02.2018 um 10:16 schrieb David Kastrup: Blöchl Bernhardwrites: 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
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 Bernardwrote: > 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
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 Walshwrote: > > . 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
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 Åbergwrote: > > > > 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
Hi David, On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:39 AM, David Kastrupwrote: > > 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
> On 8 Feb 2018, at 10:39, David Kastrupwrote: > > "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
> On 8 Feb 2018, at 10:39, David Kastrupwrote: > > "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
> On 8 Feb 2018, at 01:59, Andrew Bernardwrote: > > 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
> On 8 Feb 2018, at 01:59, Andrew Bernardwrote: > > 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
"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
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
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
Blöchl Bernhardwrites: > 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
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
Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
Hi Richard, 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. 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. 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. Andrew ___ 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
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! As I said, f flat and e are worlds apart. 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
Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
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! 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
Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
Am 07.02.2018 um 23:04 schrieb Thomas Morley: Hi Urs, 2018-02-07 22:18 GMT+01:00 Urs Liska: 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) sure about _six_ flats? Oops, no, of course we're already at seven. With fes minor reaching into the uncharted territory of eleven (!) 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. Always nice as reference for extreme notation issues: http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/donbyrd/CMNExtremes.htm here: http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/donbyrd/CMNExtremesBody.htm#pitch Though, I couldn't find an image for the mentioned pieces. Maybe this is because it isn't as much a case of extreme notation but rather of extreme composition. 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
On 2/7/2018 4:04 PM, Thomas Morley wrote: Always nice as reference for extreme notation issues: http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/donbyrd/CMNExtremes.htm Interesting, thanks! My productivity is slowly recovering now. -- Karlin High Missouri, USA ___ 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
I had a look at the sheet music and found it's f minor. As I alredy mentioned f minor is different from fb major. Am 07.02.2018 22:36, schrieb Urs Liska: Am 07.02.2018 um 22:18 schrieb Urs Liska: My favourite example is in Schubert's song Schwangesang D 744 (http://imslp.org/wiki/Schwanengesang,_D.744_(Schubert,_Franz) [1] ). 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). As a further reference, showing the composer's original intention, the manuscript: http://schubert-online.at/activpage/manuskripte.php?top=1_id=10149=allewerke [2] Links: -- [1] http://imslp.org/wiki/Schwanengesang,_D.744_%28Schubert,_Franz%29 [2] http://schubert-online.at/activpage/manuskripte.php?top=1werke_id=10149herkunft=allewerke ___ 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: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
Hi Urs, 2018-02-07 22:18 GMT+01:00 Urs Liska: > 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) sure about _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 (=> eses''> in LilyPond language)! There's no way this could ever make sense in > e minor. Always nice as reference for extreme notation issues: http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/donbyrd/CMNExtremes.htm here: http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/donbyrd/CMNExtremesBody.htm#pitch Though, I couldn't find an image for the mentioned pieces. 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
> On 7 Feb 2018, at 22:18, Urs Liskawrote: > >> 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). The staff system refers to Pythagorean tuning, and orchestral instruments, mainly the strings, adapt the harmony into 5-limit Just Intonation. It makes distant keys (with many accidentals) harder to perform, and less harmonically focused, which the composer might exploit. > 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 (=> eses''> 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). This probably happens on piano, too, before the development of effective E12 tuning methods, which is early 1900s. ___ 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
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? 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 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. If one is only playing the notes of the sheet is this really important? 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
Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
Am 07.02.2018 um 22:18 schrieb Urs Liska: 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). As a further reference, showing the composer's original intention, the manuscript: http://schubert-online.at/activpage/manuskripte.php?top=1_id=10149=allewerke ___ 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
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
Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
Torsten Hämmerlewrites: > As to the "official" order of accidentals, Elaine Gould writes: "The order > of accidentals follows the 'cycle of fifths'." I think that's pretty unambiguous. > This, unfortunately, is not very clear for the "theoretical keys" containing > double flats or double sharps. > > *1st interpretation* (LilyPond's behaviour) > As the F## in G# major is the last accidental in the circle of fifths, so > it's printed last. > > *2nd interpretation* > While the F## may be the last accidental, it's nevertheless replacing the F# > (the first sharp) and therefore should be printed first. I find the 2nd interpretation untenable given her words. F턪 follows B♯ in the circle of fifths. The only possible interpretation is that F♯ is also present, but I think she would have mentioned an overriden accidental. It's similar to changing from F♮ to F턪 in a score: you don't indicate an intermediate step. -- 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
Hi Richard, That's an interesting question, indeed... Richard M wrote > Why does LilyPond notate it one way, [...] LilyPond uses a list keyAlterationOrder containing the order of alterations printed. It is defined as follows in engraver-init.ly: keyAlterationOrder = #`( (6 . ,FLAT) (2 . ,FLAT) (5 . ,FLAT ) (1 . ,FLAT) (4 . ,FLAT) (0 . ,FLAT) (3 . ,FLAT) (3 . ,SHARP) (0 . ,SHARP) (4 . ,SHARP) (1 . ,SHARP) (5 . ,SHARP) (2 . ,SHARP) (6 . ,SHARP) (6 . ,DOUBLE-FLAT) (2 . ,DOUBLE-FLAT) (5 . ,DOUBLE-FLAT ) (1 . ,DOUBLE-FLAT) (4 . ,DOUBLE-FLAT) (0 . ,DOUBLE-FLAT) (3 . ,DOUBLE-FLAT) (3 . ,DOUBLE-SHARP) (0 . ,DOUBLE-SHARP) (4 . ,DOUBLE-SHARP) (1 . ,DOUBLE-SHARP) (5 . ,DOUBLE-SHARP) (2 . ,DOUBLE-SHARP) (6 . ,DOUBLE-SHARP) ) (sorry for the bad formatting). the numbers range from 0 to 6 with 0 = C ... 6 = B translated into pitches, that will be Bb Eb Ab Db Gb Cb Fb F# C# G# D# A# E# B# Bbb Ebb Abb Dbb Gbb Cbb Fbb F## C## G## D## A## E## B## That's why F## will be printed last. Richard M wrote > [...] and I'm wondering if there's an official source that determines how > they are to be notated. As to the "official" order of accidentals, Elaine Gould writes: "The order of accidentals follows the 'cycle of fifths'." This, unfortunately, is not very clear for the "theoretical keys" containing double flats or double sharps. *1st interpretation* (LilyPond's behaviour) As the F## in G# major is the last accidental in the circle of fifths, so it's printed last. *2nd interpretation* While the F## may be the last accidental, it's nevertheless replacing the F# (the first sharp) and therefore should be printed first. By the way, switching languages in Wikipedia, simple English or Polish will show LilyPond's order. ;) All the best, Torsten -- Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Fwd: Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
Add on: I remember, that the brass and reed instruments always wanted keys with minor signs. They have flaps to lower the tone a half step but not to raise it I argue that might be the reason for such "strange" keys from the perspective of other instrumentalists? Originalnachricht Betreff: Re: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm Datum: 07.02.2018 21:13 Von: Blöchl Bernhard <b_120902342...@telecolumbus.net> An: lilypond-user@gnu.org 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. Am 07.02.2018 20:31, schrieb Richard M: This discrepancy is actually what led to my question. Why does LilyPond notate it one way, while this image shows another? (My research has shown at the image you provided was custom made in MuseScore.) Although G♯ major is enharmonic to A♭, there are still pieces that use these "theoretical" key signatures (one brass quintet piece is actually in F♭), and I'm wondering if there's an official source that determines how they are to be notated. On 02/07/2018 02:19 PM, Ben wrote: On 2/7/2018 1:47 PM, Richard M wrote: Hello, list, how does LilyPond create the key signature for Gis major? I've attached a file to compile the key signature, which results in: C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, B#, and Fx. It is interesting to me that the key signature begins with C#, and the Fx is placed at the end. I'm wondering if there's a resource the developers used (perhaps a notation manual) that gave a rule for how key signatures with double accidentals should be formatted. Hi, What about this Wikipedia image showing the key signature order of sharps + double? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-sharp_major#/media/File:G-sharp-major_e-sharp-minor.png [2] ...it looks like the double sharp is in the right spot, but even still, could you just use the more common - enharmonic key of A♭ MAJOR instead? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-sharp_major#/media/File:G-sharp-major_e-sharp-minor.png ___ 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: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
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. Am 07.02.2018 20:31, schrieb Richard M: This discrepancy is actually what led to my question. Why does LilyPond notate it one way, while this image shows another? (My research has shown at the image you provided was custom made in MuseScore.) Although G♯ major is enharmonic to A♭, there are still pieces that use these "theoretical" key signatures (one brass quintet piece is actually in F♭), and I'm wondering if there's an official source that determines how they are to be notated. On 02/07/2018 02:19 PM, Ben wrote: On 2/7/2018 1:47 PM, Richard M wrote: Hello, list, how does LilyPond create the key signature for Gis major? I've attached a file to compile the key signature, which results in: C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, B#, and Fx. It is interesting to me that the key signature begins with C#, and the Fx is placed at the end. I'm wondering if there's a resource the developers used (perhaps a notation manual) that gave a rule for how key signatures with double accidentals should be formatted. Hi, What about this Wikipedia image showing the key signature order of sharps + double? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-sharp_major#/media/File:G-sharp-major_e-sharp-minor.png [2] ...it looks like the double sharp is in the right spot, but even still, could you just use the more common - enharmonic key of A♭ MAJOR instead? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-sharp_major#/media/File:G-sharp-major_e-sharp-minor.png ___ 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: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
This discrepancy is actually what led to my question. Why does LilyPond notate it one way, while this image shows another? (My research has shown at the image you provided was custom made in MuseScore.) Although G♯ major is enharmonic to A♭, there are still pieces that use these "theoretical" key signatures (one brass quintet piece is actually in F♭), and I'm wondering if there's an official source that determines how they are to be notated. On 02/07/2018 02:19 PM, Ben wrote: On 2/7/2018 1:47 PM, Richard M wrote: Hello, list, how does LilyPond create the key signature for Gis major? I've attached a file to compile the key signature, which results in: C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, B#, and Fx. It is interesting to me that the key signature begins with C#, and the Fx is placed at the end. I'm wondering if there's a resource the developers used (perhaps a notation manual) that gave a rule for how key signatures with double accidentals should be formatted. Hi, What about this Wikipedia image showing the key signature order of sharps + double? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-sharp_major#/media/File:G-sharp-major_e-sharp-minor.png ...it looks like the double sharp is in the right spot, but even still, could you just use the more common - enharmonic key of *A♭ major* instead? ___ 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: Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
On 2/7/2018 1:47 PM, Richard M wrote: Hello, list, how does LilyPond create the key signature for Gis major? I've attached a file to compile the key signature, which results in: C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, B#, and Fx. It is interesting to me that the key signature begins with C#, and the Fx is placed at the end. I'm wondering if there's a resource the developers used (perhaps a notation manual) that gave a rule for how key signatures with double accidentals should be formatted. Hi, What about this Wikipedia image showing the key signature order of sharps + double? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-sharp_major#/media/File:G-sharp-major_e-sharp-minor.png ...it looks like the double sharp is in the right spot, but even still, could you just use the more common - enharmonic key of *A♭ major* instead? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Gis major key signature; Lily's key signature algorithm
Hello, list, how does LilyPond create the key signature for Gis major? I've attached a file to compile the key signature, which results in: C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, B#, and Fx. It is interesting to me that the key signature begins with C#, and the Fx is placed at the end. I'm wondering if there's a resource the developers used (perhaps a notation manual) that gave a rule for how key signatures with double accidentals should be formatted. We all know how 'normal' key signatures are formed, but I can not find a resource that mentions key signatures with double accidentals. It seems more likely that LilyPond uses an algorithm to create the key signature (especially since, for example, inputting `\key fisis \major` gives an output). Regarding Gis major, other possibilities are: Fx, C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, and B# (with Fx at the beginning). Or even: F#, C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, B#, and Fx (with F# at the beginning and Fx at the end). There may be others. So I'm looking for how LilyPond forms these key signatures, and why Gis major results in one particular key signature and not one of the other two. There must be a rule somewhere that makes that determination. Thank you, Richard \version "2.19.80" violin = \relative c'' { \key gis \major gis1 | } \score { \new Staff \violin \layout { } } ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user