Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)

[Graham Percival]

Rune Zedeler wrote:
> Very first I comment on the stuff I wrote below: When I wrote it I 
> didn't really notice / think about the fact the the first five sections 
> are left out. Probably some of my comments are not totally valid. Well, 
> I will think some more, and post another message about the overall 
> structure of the manual.

As I said earlier,

- the manual will be split even more into Learning Manual / Notation
 Reference.  This is the notation reference, so we assume that users
 have read the LM.  They know about music expressions, \override, etc.
 The LM will be increased to accomodate for this, but that's a separate
 discussion.


The division between Basic/Advanced was a somewhat artificial thing for 
newbies reading the NR for the first time.  But the main use of the NR 
is to be a *reference* -- ie knowledgeable users look stuff up in it. 
So I don't think it's worth putting things in a weird order for just to 
make it easier for new users -- the Learning Manual is the place for 
them, and that document most definitely *can* and *should* be read from 
start to finish.

> >                + 6.2.1 Clef
> >                + 6.2.2 Key signature
>
> Hmm, neither clefs nor key signatures affect pitches. They only affect 
> how they are displayed.

Yes, true.  Rename section?

> >                + 6.2.4 Instrument transpositions
>
> No, This subsection is very advanced (try reading it!) - I think it is 
> way too early in the manual.
> I am not even sure, that I understand it properly.

It makes sense to have this next to Transposition.  Making that 
subsection easier to read is certainly a goal of later stages of GDP.

> >                + 6.2.5 Ottava brackets
>
> No, again they do not affect pitches. They just affect how they are 
> displayed.
>
> Summa summarum I only accepted the "Transpose" subsection in this 
> section - and hence really do not think that this section has any 
> purpose.

Rename section?  Alternately, where should we move those subsections to?

> And in all cases, it is way too early. The user has not even 
> learned what the "4" in "c4" means.

Tutorial.  If a user hasn't read the LM, they're on their own and I have 
*no* sympathy for them.


> >                + 6.3.5 Automatic note splitting
>
> This does not work before the "Bars" section.
> I see no problem in simply moving this to there.

Could do... I'm certainly not opposed to this change, but I'll need a 
bit more convincing.

> >                + 6.4.7 Proportional notation (introduction)
>
> No, this is too layout specific for this section. It has nothing to do 
> with the musical content, only with how it is displayed.

Trevor already proposed deleting this entirely.

... my general concern with "it isn't musical content, only with how it 
is displayed" is that most musicians don't make that distinction.  Most 
people _would_ say that ottava changes pitches.

OTOH, we try to enforce this mentality in our discussion about key 
signatures.  Hmm, what would think about

6.1 Pitches
6.2 Displaying pitches
(move Transpose into 6.1)
6.3 Rhythms
6.4 Displaying rhythms
6.5 Bars
(strictly speaking Bars would be a subset of Displaying rhythms, but I 
think this section works well by itself, with bar numbers, multi-measure 
rests, and the like all together)

> >                + 6.4.8 Automatic beams
> >                + 6.4.9 Manual beams
> >                + 6.4.10 Feathered beams
>
> I don't think that beams belong in this section - they belong together 
> with phrasing slurs.

IMO, beaming is intricately bound up in meter.  I could be convinced 
otherwise, though.  Anybody else have opinions about this?

> >                + 6.6.2 Stems
>
> Currently, this subsection has nothing to do with polyphony.
> Furthermore it is layout specific, and should therefore be postponed.

I have _always_ hated this section.  I remember trying -- and failing -- 
to find a home for it when I did my very first doc rearrangement, and 
it's still a pain.

Help?  Anybody have a suggestion for where to move this to?  (or perhaps 
delete entirely, and put info about \stemDown... where?)

> >                + 6.6.5 Collision resolution
>
> No, this should be postponed to some "tweaking" section. A "Polyphony" 
> section should not contain layout-specific subsections.

Hmmm... would we have enough material to create a
Display polyphony
section?

> >    * 7 Decorating musical notation
>
> The way I always thought of the distinction between "basic" and 
> "advanced" notation is that the basic notation contained the parts that 
> lilypond understands the musical meaning of whereas the advanced 
> notation was the parts that lilypond does not know how to interpret 
> musically. I.e. if you do stuff that you have read about in the "basic" 
> section, the generated midi will (or at least should) reflect it; if you 
> do stuff in the "advanced" section, the midi will not reflect it.
> I can see that this is not strictly correct, but this is the way I have 
> always thought about it and therefore I think that the distinction made 
> great sense.
> I do not in the same way see the meaning in "decorating musical notation".

Actually, the new layout reflects this much more -- with the possible 
exception of Dynamics, everything in "decorating" does not affect midi.

> >          o 7.1 Connecting notes
> >                + 7.1.1 Ties
> >                + 7.1.2 Slurs
> >                + 7.1.3 Phrasing slurs
> >                + 7.1.4 Laissez vibrer ties
> >                + 7.1.5 Grace notes
> >                + 7.1.6 Analysis brackets
>
> No. This is not decorating. It has musical meaning. c~c is not some 
> decoration of c c. It means something totally different.

John didn't like the word "decorating" either, but I think it's fine. 
Anybody want to suggest a new chapter name?

> >          o 8.6 Bowed strings
> >                + 8.6.1 Artificial harmonics
>
> Well, isn't this also used in classical guitar? I am not sure, though.

I used to get into arguments with a classical guitarist about what 
artificial vs. harmonics meant.  He thought they were opposite to what 
orchestral string players did, and I have no knowledge of guitar 
terminology so I couldn't be certain that he was wrong about that 
instrument.  To avoid these matters, I called it "artificial harmonics 
(strings)"

> >          o 8.7 Ancient notation
>
> Hmm, not really instrument specific.

"Specific-purpose notation" ?
"Notation for limited use" ?

> >          o 9.1 Text in a score
>
> This is definitely decorative. Put it in the decorative section now it's 
> there.
>
> >          o 9.2 Text markup section
>
> This would be a great candidate for its own chapter, imo.

IMO we should include 9.1 with 9.2.

> >          o 9.3 Vocal music
>
> If we consider the human voice an instrument, then this is very 
> instrument specific. Move it to that section.

That's where it used to be, but singers complained.  :)

> >          o 9.4 Titles and headers
>
> I would like a "Page layout" chaper, where this section should go. 
> Mentioning "multi scores in one files" would also fit nicely in there, 
> along with the discussion of the paper- and layout-blocks.

I agree with this, but not very strongly yet.  John, Valentin?  You guys 
wanted this in Text; feel like defending this position?  :)


Cheers,
- Graham