Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
39 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Carl Sorensen-3
Dear LilyPond users,

Marc Hohl has done a good job of improving tablature notation.  We're just
ready to add it to LilyPond 2.13.4.

In the process of adding it, a question come up about the name for some
notation.

In rock (and maybe jazz) guitar, there is a note described as a "dead note"
that is notated in both tablature and staff notation with a cross-style
notehead.  This note is played on a muted string, so it gets rhythm but no
real pitch.

The code has been developed with the name \deadNotesOn, \deadNotesOff, and
\deadNote.

The same notation appears to be used in woodwinds for what is sometimes
called a "ghost note".

I'd prefer to get the most useful name for the notation, but I'd also like
to avoid instrument-specific names if possible.

Once we get the name in LilyPond, it's changeable, but it seems to cause
stress to people when the syntax changes.  So I'd like to take some time to
get it right before committing the code.

So, please answer the following questions:

1) What instances (other than a drum staff) are you aware of where a note
uses a cross symbol rather than a standard note head?

2) For each of the instances you identified in part 1), what do you call the
resulting note?

Thanks,

Carl



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Mark Polesky

Carl Sorensen wrote:
> In rock (and maybe jazz) guitar, there is a note described as a "dead note"
> that is notated in both tablature and staff notation with a cross-style
> notehead.  This note is played on a muted string, so it gets rhythm but no
> real pitch.

Just to clarify: a "cross-style" notehead looks like an "x" not a "+".

- Mark



     


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Hans Aberg
In reply to this post by Carl Sorensen-3
On 21 Jul 2009, at 20:20, Carl Sorensen wrote:

> ... a question come up about the name for some notation.
>
> In rock (and maybe jazz) guitar, there is a note described as a  
> "dead note"
> that is notated in both tablature and staff notation with a cross-
> style
> notehead.  This note is played on a muted string, so it gets rhythm  
> but no
> real pitch.
>
> The code has been developed with the name \deadNotesOn,  
> \deadNotesOff, and
> \deadNote.
>
> The same notation appears to be used in woodwinds for what is  
> sometimes
> called a "ghost note".

Blatter, "Instrumentation/Orchestration", p. 79, uses such note-heads  
for saxes and flutes playing "key slap", that is, the sound is  
produced by closing the key heavily, without blowing, and in the  
course damaging the padding :-). They can be both pitched and of  
unspecified pitched. In the latter case, the staff is a single line.

   Hans




_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Mark Polesky
In reply to this post by Mark Polesky

Carl Sorensen wrote:
> 1) What instances (other than a drum staff) are you aware of
> where a note uses a cross symbol rather than a standard note
> head?
>
> 2) For each of the instances you identified in part 1), what do
> you call the resulting note?

Below I've listed all the uses of the x-shaped notehead that I
could find in Kurt Stone's "Music Notation in the Twentieth
Century". I may have missed some, but this should give you an
idea.

- Mark


Woodwinds
p.192 - key-slap
p.195 - sub-tone

Brasses
p.198 - fingernails on bell
p.199 - growl
p.200 - mouthpiece pop (hand pop)
p.204 - valve click

Percussion
p.219 - cymbals (sometimes)

Harp
p.249 - indeterminate low string(s)

Organ
p.275-277 - key-release

Voice
p.294 - unvoiced sound (tongue only, no vocal chords)
p.298 - Sprechstimme
p.298 - speaking voice
p.303 - unvoiced vocal effects (tongue-clicks, lip-smacks, etc.)
p.304 - whisper

Bowed String Instruments
p.307-308 - tapping or striking (with fingers, hand, or bow etc.)
p.308 - bowing behind the bridge
p.309 - bowing on top of the bridge
p.315 - slapping the strings
p.315 - bowing on the tailpiece

Taped (Prerecorded) Sound
p.317 - approximate pitches or pitch levels


     


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Hans Aberg
In reply to this post by Carl Sorensen-3
On 21 Jul 2009, at 20:20, Carl Sorensen wrote:

> I'd prefer to get the most useful name for the notation, but I'd  
> also like
> to avoid instrument-specific names if possible.

There is a Unicode name for it:
   MUSICAL SYMBOL X NOTEHEAD
   U+1D143

(And there is a list of noteheads up to U+1D15B MUSICAL SYMBOL CLUSTER  
NOTEHEAD BLACK.)

   Hans




_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Mark Polesky
In reply to this post by Mark Polesky

There is an informative section called "Unpitched Sounds" on p.190
of Kurt Stone's book. Basically he says unpitched sounds should be
notated with x-shaped heads on an extra line (usually above the
staff) with a textual performance direction written at first
occurence, using opposing stem-directions or extra lines for two
or more types. Long sections with one type and nothing else can go
on a single-line staff.

Here are some uses mentioned by Gardner Read in his book "Music
Notation" (that do not repeat what I already listed from Kurt
Stone). To repeat something I've said in the past: In my opinion,
Kurt Stone is far more authoritative than Gardner Read.
- Mark

Woodwind Notation
p.351 - forceful blowing into a mouthpiece, indefinite tone.
p.360 - striking mouthpiece or bell with open hand

Jazz Notation
p.412 - wire-brush (percussion)
p.416 - plop


     


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Hans Aberg
On 21 Jul 2009, at 21:18, Mark Polesky wrote:

> There is an informative section called "Unpitched Sounds" on p.190
> of Kurt Stone's book. Basically he says unpitched sounds should be
> notated with x-shaped heads on an extra line (usually above the
> staff) with a textual performance direction written at first
> occurence, using opposing stem-directions or extra lines for two
> or more types. Long sections with one type and nothing else can go
> on a single-line staff.

Note however that key-slaps on a flute or sax, also written with an x-
head, can be pitched. So that excludes names like "unpitched note", I  
think. Blatter wrote the pitched key-slaps on an ordinary staff, and  
those of, as he terms it, unspecified pitch on a single line staff.  
"Unspecified pitch" suggests that it can be pitched, but it is left up  
to the discretion of the performer.

   Hans




_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Trevor Daniels
In reply to this post by Mark Polesky

Given the wide variation in the use of the
x-shaped note head I think the only possible
name to use is one that reflects the shape of
the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or
similar - rather than trying to find a suitable
generic name which adequately covers all these
disparate uses.

Trevor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Polesky" <[hidden email]>
To: "Carl Sorensen" <[hidden email]>; "lilypond"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads


>
> Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> 1) What instances (other than a drum staff) are you aware of
>> where a note uses a cross symbol rather than a standard note
>> head?
>>
>> 2) For each of the instances you identified in part 1), what do
>> you call the resulting note?
>
> Below I've listed all the uses of the x-shaped notehead that I
> could find in Kurt Stone's "Music Notation in the Twentieth
> Century". I may have missed some, but this should give you an
> idea.
>
> - Mark
>
>
> Woodwinds
> p.192 - key-slap
> p.195 - sub-tone
>
> Brasses
> p.198 - fingernails on bell
> p.199 - growl
> p.200 - mouthpiece pop (hand pop)
> p.204 - valve click
>
> Percussion
> p.219 - cymbals (sometimes)
>
> Harp
> p.249 - indeterminate low string(s)
>
> Organ
> p.275-277 - key-release
>
> Voice
> p.294 - unvoiced sound (tongue only, no vocal chords)
> p.298 - Sprechstimme
> p.298 - speaking voice
> p.303 - unvoiced vocal effects (tongue-clicks, lip-smacks, etc.)
> p.304 - whisper
>
> Bowed String Instruments
> p.307-308 - tapping or striking (with fingers, hand, or bow etc.)
> p.308 - bowing behind the bridge
> p.309 - bowing on top of the bridge
> p.315 - slapping the strings
> p.315 - bowing on the tailpiece
>
> Taped (Prerecorded) Sound
> p.317 - approximate pitches or pitch levels
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Carl Sorensen-3



On 7/21/09 3:00 PM, "Trevor Daniels" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Given the wide variation in the use of the
> x-shaped note head I think the only possible
> name to use is one that reflects the shape of
> the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or
> similar - rather than trying to find a suitable
> generic name which adequately covers all these
> disparate uses.
>


So, if we follow this advice (which I think is good), I'd propose the
following:

\crossHeadsOn : turns on cross noteheads for all notes
\crossHeadsOff : reverts cross noteheads for all notes
\crossHead : makes the notes in the music expression following the
occurrence have cross heads.

If we define those functions, they'll be generic, and apply to music of
whatever sort.

If necessary, syntactic sugar could be used to define (for the convenience
of tablature users)

\deadNotesOn -- set equal to \crossHeadsOn
\deadNotesOff -- set equal to \crossHeadsOff
\deadNote -- set equal to \crossHead

How does this seem?

Carl



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Mark Polesky

"Trevor Daniels" wrote:
> Given the wide variation in the use of the
> x-shaped note head I think the only possible
> name to use is one that reflects the shape of
> the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or
> similar - rather than trying to find a suitable
> generic name which adequately covers all these
> disparate uses.

I might disagree. I'm big on semantics, and I would rather have a
lot of commands that create the same look but mean different
things, than have one command that creates a look which could mean
a lot of different things. I don't know how people will be using
LilyPond in the future, but I'd like for the program not to get
stuck in ambiguous semantics.

Another (smaller) example I've been thinking about recently is the
diamond notehead. On a string instrument, it means to put your
finger lightly on the string to activate a specific harmonic node,
and we have the \harmonic command for that. But on the piano, a
diamond notehead usually means to push down that piano key
silently so its strings will vibrate sympathetically. There's no
\depressSilently command, and there's no \diamond command. Even
the glyph itself is called s0harmonic, so I'm stuck using
\harmonic in a case that has nothing to do with harmonics. (Well,
there *is* a diamond glyph, but it's not the same!)

Anyway, what's the best solution to this? Imagine if we replaced
all uses of \harmonic with something like \diamond. Now strings
and pianos would be on equal terms (I guess), but a lot of
meaning would be lost.

One more example... We have \stemup, \tieUp, \slurUp, \dynamicUp,
etc. but those are all descriptive, not semantic. But we also have
\voiceOne which conveys all of the visually descriptive stuff, and
also conveys something which, as but one example, can be used by
other programs in specific ways, when interfacing with LilyPond.

What do you guys think?
- Mark


     


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

TaoCG
In reply to this post by Carl Sorensen-3
Carl Sorensen-3 wrote
2) For each of the instances you identified in part 1), what do you call the
resulting note?
I've never heard the term 'dead note' but 'ghost note' is very common. Doesn't matter if it's a string or wind instrument. Neither is it limited to woodwinds, it occurs in brass as well. Listen to Miles Davis, Chet Baker, etc. and you will hear this a lot.
For string instruments I experience this to be especially common among electric bass players.

Regards,

Tao
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Marc Hohl
TaoCG schrieb:

> Carl Sorensen-3 wrote:
>  
>> 2) For each of the instances you identified in part 1), what do you call
>> the
>> resulting note?
>>
>>    
> I've never heard the term 'dead note' but 'ghost note' is very common.
> Doesn't matter if it's a string or wind instrument. Neither is it limited to
> woodwinds, it occurs in brass as well. Listen to Miles Davis, Chet Baker,
> etc. and you will hear this a lot.
>  
On guitar and bass, a ghost note has a parenthesized note head, whereas
a dead note is
plucked and dampened at the same time, so that you only hear the sound
of the plucking.
The pitch is used to clarify which sting you use (when there is no
tablature), or to make
sure that the damping finger is not moved away from its former position
(because the same
note is played normal style after the dead note, e.g.)
> For string instruments I experience this to be especially common among
> electric bass players.
>  
As a bass player, I found in every book of teaching bass that I own the
term "dead note" (even in
german book the english term is used).
> Regards,
>
> Tao
>  



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

David Raleigh Arnold
In reply to this post by Mark Polesky
On Tuesday 21 July 2009, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
> "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
> > Given the wide variation in the use of the
> > x-shaped note head I think the only possible
> > name to use is one that reflects the shape of
> > the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or
> > similar - rather than trying to find a suitable
> > generic name which adequately covers all these
> > disparate uses.

XHead.  daveA

--
Very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises.  Intermediate guitar
solos, theory, banjo, harmonica.  Free download of technical exercises
worth a lifetime of practice.  Compare Segovia's scale set with DGT:
http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Marc Hohl
David Raleigh Arnold schrieb:

> On Tuesday 21 July 2009, Mark Polesky wrote:
>  
>> "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>>    
>>> Given the wide variation in the use of the
>>> x-shaped note head I think the only possible
>>> name to use is one that reflects the shape of
>>> the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or
>>> similar - rather than trying to find a suitable
>>> generic name which adequately covers all these
>>> disparate uses.
>>>      
>
> XHead.  daveA
>  
Yes, I think I could live with \xHeadOn, \xHeadOff and \xHead respectively.

Marc



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Carl Sorensen-3
In reply to this post by Mark Polesky



On 7/21/09 9:01 PM, "Mark Polesky" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>> Given the wide variation in the use of the
>> x-shaped note head I think the only possible
>> name to use is one that reflects the shape of
>> the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or
>> similar - rather than trying to find a suitable
>> generic name which adequately covers all these
>> disparate uses.
>
> I might disagree. I'm big on semantics, and I would rather have a
> lot of commands that create the same look but mean different
> things, than have one command that creates a look which could mean
> a lot of different things. I don't know how people will be using
> LilyPond in the future, but I'd like for the program not to get
> stuck in ambiguous semantics.

I agree with your concern with semantics.

>
> Another (smaller) example I've been thinking about recently is the
> diamond notehead. On a string instrument, it means to put your
> finger lightly on the string to activate a specific harmonic node,
> and we have the \harmonic command for that. But on the piano, a
> diamond notehead usually means to push down that piano key
> silently so its strings will vibrate sympathetically. There's no
> \depressSilently command, and there's no \diamond command. Even
> the glyph itself is called s0harmonic, so I'm stuck using
> \harmonic in a case that has nothing to do with harmonics. (Well,
> there *is* a diamond glyph, but it's not the same!)
>
> Anyway, what's the best solution to this? Imagine if we replaced
> all uses of \harmonic with something like \diamond. Now strings
> and pianos would be on equal terms (I guess), but a lot of
> meaning would be lost.

The user semantic would be worse.  But the internal semantic would be
better.

There are two different kinds of semantics that apply.  One is the semantic
that the composer sees.  The other is the semantic that the engraver sees.
We often don't worry about the engraver semantics, since the engraver is
just a program, and the program can do whatever it's told.  But having good
engraver semantics helps new developers become familiar with the code.

Having the production of diamond noteheads be governed by \diamond would be
good engraver semantics.

Having \harmonic available as an alias to \diamond would be good semantics
for string music.

Having \depressSilently or \silentNote available as an alias to \diamond
would be good semantics for keyboard music.

I think it is possible to have all three, and that having all three may be
the best thing to do semantically.

There could be an argument that we don't want to unnecessarily expand the
namespace, but I think that your argument about having correct semantics is
a valid argument.

And I think that the separation of engraver semantics from user semantics is
also a valid distinction.  We do this in programming all the time, even in
LilyPond.  We define an extent (a user semantic) as a pair (a Scheme
semantic).  Then, if we want to change the Scheme semantic for some reason,
we can do so, leaving the user semantic in place.  I believe it makes sense
to do the same for music input, for the same reasons, where there is
semantic user input.

Thanks for starting the discussion on semantics.

Carl



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Kieren MacMillan
Hi all,

Just adding my 2ยข...

>> I might disagree. I'm big on semantics, and I would rather have a
>> lot of commands that create the same look but mean different
>> things, than have one command that creates a look which could mean
>> a lot of different things. I don't know how people will be using
>> LilyPond in the future, but I'd like for the program not to get
>> stuck in ambiguous semantics.
>
> I agree with your concern with semantics.

-1: I would much rather see one WISIWYG (What It Says Is What You  
Get) function rather than multiple WIMGRITSCDF (What It Means Gets  
Resolved Internally To Some Completely Different Function) functions.  
First of all, it minimizes namespace crowding; secondly, it reduces  
confusion and complexity in the docs (no need for crossrefs, etc.).

> The user semantic would be worse.

-1: The *composer-user* semantic might [!] be worse, but the  
*engraver-user* semantic would be better.

> There are two different kinds of semantics that apply.  One is the  
> semantic
> that the composer sees.  The other is the semantic that the  
> engraver sees.

If by "engraver" you mean "person who is using Lilypond to engrave",  
then +1.  =)

The main problem I see in this thread is that we're trying to turn  
Lilypond into a *composing* application rather than thinking of it as  
purely an *engraving* application: when I *compose* for strings (I  
use pen and paper) I create/use/think "harmonics", but when I  
*engrave* the score (I use Lilypond) I code/use/think "diamond".

> There could be an argument that we don't want to unnecessarily  
> expand the namespace

+1.

> I think that your argument about having correct semantics is a  
> valid argument.

Meh... -1/2.  ;)
Kieren.

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Ian Hulin
In reply to this post by Mark Polesky
Mark Polesky wrote:
> "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>> Given the wide variation in the use of the
>> x-shaped note head I think the only possible
>> name to use is one that reflects the shape of
>> the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or
>> similar - rather than trying to find a suitable
>> generic name which adequately covers all these
>> disparate uses.
>

> What do you guys think?
> - Mark

\damped /music-expression/
with  synonyms
\crosshead /music-expression/
\guitarpizz /music-expression/

Cheers,
Ian



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Marc Hohl
Ian Hulin schrieb:

> Mark Polesky wrote:
>> "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>>> Given the wide variation in the use of the
>>> x-shaped note head I think the only possible
>>> name to use is one that reflects the shape of
>>> the note head - crossNote, crossNoteHead or
>>> similar - rather than trying to find a suitable
>>> generic name which adequately covers all these
>>> disparate uses.
>>
>
>> What do you guys think?
>> - Mark
>
> \damped /music-expression/
> with  synonyms
> \crosshead /music-expression/
> \guitarpizz /music-expression/
A guitar pizziccato is not indicated by cross head notes, so the latter
will be misleading.

Marc

>
> Cheers,
> Ian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Paul Scott-3
In reply to this post by Hans Aberg
Hans Aberg wrote:

> On 21 Jul 2009, at 20:20, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>> ... a question come up about the name for some notation.
>>
>> In rock (and maybe jazz) guitar, there is a note described as a "dead
>> note"
>> that is notated in both tablature and staff notation with a cross-style
>> notehead.  This note is played on a muted string, so it gets rhythm
>> but no
>> real pitch.
>>
>> The code has been developed with the name \deadNotesOn,
>> \deadNotesOff, and
>> \deadNote.
>>
>> The same notation appears to be used in woodwinds for what is sometimes
>> called a "ghost note".

In my experience ghost notes are in parentheses.

Paul Scott





_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

Paul Scott-3
In reply to this post by Hans Aberg
Hans Aberg wrote:

> On 21 Jul 2009, at 20:20, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>> ... a question come up about the name for some notation.
>>
>> In rock (and maybe jazz) guitar, there is a note described as a "dead
>> note"
>> that is notated in both tablature and staff notation with a cross-style
>> notehead.  This note is played on a muted string, so it gets rhythm
>> but no
>> real pitch.
>>
>> The code has been developed with the name \deadNotesOn,
>> \deadNotesOff, and
>> \deadNote.
>>
>> The same notation appears to be used in woodwinds for what is sometimes
>> called a "ghost note".

In my experience ghost notes are in parentheses.

Paul Scott




_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
12