Re: tab

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:31:11 Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> address@hidden writes:
> > 
> > On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 14:14:29 Lamy Jean-Baptiste wrote:
> > > David and Rune, what do you think of the Han-Wen's proposition 
> > > (Identifying
> > > strings by their note name) ?
> > > 
> > > If you are right, i'll work on it in about 2 weeks (after my exams).
> > > 
> > > Jiba
> > 
> > Beginners should have the numbers for string
> > indications in rings in the notation and advanced
> > players the names.  Nothing needs to be done about that.  
> > I think it is better to use numbers for
> > the strings in the tab syntax, because everyone knows or
> > should know which one the 1st string is,
> 
> I think we had a big discussion about this some weeks ago, which
> indicated that --your strong opinions notwithstanding-- there are
> different conventions for numbering strings.

That's the point.  Everyone knows which the 1st string is.
Look in any standard reference.  On a banjo, the 5th string
is the short one, never the 1st.  The fact that there are
a lot of people around who cannot be troubled to learn to
read music at all
does not rise to the level of "different conventions".  On
a guitar there is the G or 3rd string.  On a violin there
is the G or 4th string, period.  *You should know this.*
  
> String pitches are more
> explicit,

1. That's not so either.  Baroque guitar usually had a 5th course
unison "a"
but sometimes had a 5th course octave "a," .   The lower courses of strings on
the lute have always been octaves.  Most fretted instruments
including lute and guitar are/were occasionally transposed up and down
with or without the use of a capotasto.

2.  The pitch has nothing to do with
tab.  Only the physical location of the string matters.

> and can be combined with fingerings (which is not possible
> with the current setup);

You mean I have to choose between fingering in the notation
and tab?  Why?  The "-" for fingering was never useful anyway, and
almost everything I do has lots of fingering in it.  Why break that?

> we only have to add small kludges to support
> stringed instruments with duplicate pitches in their strings.

Why have to have kludges when you don't need them at all?
You should know by now that one kludge leads to another.
 
> For the lazy, we could even provide a function to translate fingerings
> to string pitches automatically, in any order they like.

It will be trivial.  If a tab part is created in that way, two tab parts could
generate one voice in notation.  The ordinary guitar solo could be generated
with six such tab parts.  You see, you
can have one tab part for each voice if and only if
you have rests in the tab sytax.  Otherwise
you need a another tab staff for the
rests for each voice, which is rather silly.  So whoever does it
should have rests in the tab syntax for printing in the notation
but not in the tab, to become the
visible and the silent and the spacer rests in
the notation, and that way he can
have one tab part for each voice.

A finished tab part can only determine one voice without rests.
That is why Jeff an I said that that translation couldn't be done in a 
worthwhile way.  And it can't, if you mean a finished product.

Having generated the notation, that could generate the tab version of
the piece.

Because you probably (I hope!) want the resulting notation in an .ly file, a
separate executable to create that staff would make more
sense.  The ideal tool (actually, the only way I can imagine)
to do all that in one step is *sly*.  ;-)

So that might be an interesting accessory but does
not make much sense as a part of the lilypond executable.
Don't you want to make the generation of .ly files
someone else's problem?  

Please don't continue to reverse the strings.  It's embarrassing
to be caught in such an error.  When you admit that you know
nothing about a subject, you ought not to consider my
intimate expert professional knowledge to be mere opinion.

------------------------------------------------------------
Information is not knowledge.           Belief is not truth.
Indoctrination is not teaching.   Tradition is not evidence.
         David Raleigh Arnold   address@hidden