Special fermatas (8.4.4 in the .35 docs)

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

Special fermatas (8.4.4 in the .35 docs)

Graham Percival-2
Does anybody know why this doc section exists?  It introduces four
articulation marks that are covered in Articulation.  I can't remember
if I wrote it, or if this is an old section left over from a long time
ago when those fermatas weren't in the general articulation file.  I
can't find any recent mention of this in the Changelog.

I'd like to delete it; any objections?
- Graham



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

Re: Special fermatas (8.4.4 in the .35 docs)

Juergen Reuter
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Graham Percival wrote:

> Does anybody know why this doc section exists?  It introduces four
> articulation marks that are covered in Articulation.

Hi!

Long time ago, when people where repeatingly asking for "contemporary
music notation" and when I also had the feeling that some modern
notational features were missing, I added clusters and special fermatas.
Similar to ancient notation, I added these in an extra section of the
manual in order to (1) show users that we are going to add limited support
for contemporary notation and (2) not to intermingle too much with
classical notation (I may be wrong, but I had the feeling that the main
authors at that time were happy to keep such "strange" notation features
separate from "usual" notation).  IIRC, at that time, special fermatas did
not show up in Section 6.5.1 of the manual (maybe the list of articulation
signs is nowadays automatically created from the scm sources?).

Additionally, there was discussion on how the overall structure of the
manual should be: (a) either by (implementation driven) categorization of
features (e.g. articulations, clefs, noteheads, etc. as categories) ->
"technical/reference manual", or (b) by (user driven) notational style
(vocal/instrumental music, ancient/classical/jazz/contemporary notation)
-> "user manual".  The current structure of the manual is a mixture of
both approaches.

I agree that it is not good to have special fermatas appear in both
sections, 6.5.1 and 8.4.4.  I guess (but I have not checked) that they
appear in 6.5.1 because the table in this section was/is automatically
created from the scm sources.  I feel a little bit uncomfortable with
completetly removing the fermatas from Section 8.4.4, because it is handy
to have it there for people who want to look for all contemporary music
features without having to scan through the complete manual.  Maybe in
Section 8.4 there should be at least a link to Section 6.5.1, mentioning
that there are some contemporary fermatas in the articulations section?

Please also note, that Section 7.7 (ancient notation) is in a comparable
situation.  For example, all the ancient clefs could be moved to Section
6.3.1, but then Section 6.3.1 would somewhat explode in size, thus making
it difficult to read for users that are interested just in "usual"
notation.  Hence, it is probably better to keep the clefs separated in two
different sections.

As a side note, when I added the special fermatas, I thought they were
in some sense "standard" contemporary notation, because I had seen them
in some scores.  However, it turned out that these scores were published
by a single famous publisher, but I never saw these fermatas in any score
of a different publisher.  In this sense, I meanwhile somewhat regret that
I added these symbols without having checked carefully enough for these
symbols having been truely accepted as a standard across
publishers/composers.

Greetings,
Juergen

> I can't remember if I
> wrote it, or if this is an old section left over from a long time ago when
> those fermatas weren't in the general articulation file.  I can't find any
> recent mention of this in the Changelog.
>
> I'd like to delete it; any objections?
> - Graham
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
>


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

Re: Special fermatas (8.4.4 in the .35 docs)

Graham Percival-2

On 21-Feb-06, at 3:24 AM, Juergen Reuter wrote:

> Long time ago, when people where repeatingly asking for "contemporary
> music notation" and when I also had the feeling that some modern
> notational features were missing, I added clusters and special
> fermatas.

Thanks!  I agree that it made sense at the time to do so; thank you for
doing it.  But at this point, (I hope that) I have the manual
sufficiently well-organized that it isn't necessary to single out
fermatas.

I've added some text to the beginning of "contemporary notation" on
this issue:
This section describes notation that does
not fit into traditional notation categories, such as pitches,
tuplet beams, and articulation.  For contemporary notation
that fits into traditional notation categories, such as
microtones, nested tuplet beams, and unusual fermatas, please
see those sections of the documentation.


> Please also note, that Section 7.7 (ancient notation) is in a
> comparable situation.  For example, all the ancient clefs could be
> moved to Section 6.3.1, but then Section 6.3.1 would somewhat explode
> in size, thus making it difficult to read for users that are
> interested just in "usual" notation.  Hence, it is probably better to
> keep the clefs separated in two different sections.

True... but IMO, ancient music is much more specialized than
contemporary music.  Maybe it's just my contemporary music bias.  :)

It may be worthwhile to create some "advertising" about lily's
contemporary notation, but that should go elsewhere.

Cheers,
- Graham



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