Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)

[Valentin Villenave]

2007/9/10, Graham Percival <address@hidden>:

> >>                + 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?

Hell yes!
What about :
"Pitches notation" or something like that?
This way, both transposing and ottava stuff should stay.

> 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)
>

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

This could be worth trying.

> > I do not in the same way see the meaning in "decorating musical notation".

Rune: As i've told John before, "decorating" isn't necessarily
pejorative. It isn't just about making the score fancy and eye-candy
at all. When writing my music, I always start by entering just the
notes, then I print it and go to the piano to add every performance
indications. These are two completely different steps, different
logics.

I've managed to convince John, so maybe I'll convince you too :)


> > 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)"

Well, artificial harmonics can be used in guitar music, but it is
non-standard. It is "officially" a bowed-strings practice.

> >>          o 8.7 Ancient notation
> >
> > Hmm, not really instrument specific.
>
> "Specific-purpose notation" ?
> "Notation for limited use" ?

"Specific notation"?

> >>          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.

Agreed. But let's put the lyrics stuff before.

>
> >>          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?  :)

Well, IIRC it was your idea :)
I like that every text elements can be in a same chapter (I'd have add
instrument names as well). The main question a user will ask is: "ok,
I've typeset my music; now how can I add some text".
I do think we should start with Vocal music.
Other than that, i'm fine with it as it is.
Plus, I doubt we have enough stuff to make a whole "Page layout" chapter.

Valentin