[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
From: |
Jonathan Wilkes |
Subject: |
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:40:41 -0700 (PDT) |
--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Graham Percival <address@hidden> wrote:
> From: Graham Percival <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals
> To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 7:10 AM
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:01:05PM
> -0700, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> > > If the above seems confusing, consider this: if
> you were
> > > playing a
> > > piano, which key would you hit? If you would
> press a black
> > > key,
> > > then you must add -is or -es to the note name!
> >
> > The hint at the end about black keys doesn't work for
> b- and e-sharp, nor
> > c- and f-flat, nor double-sharps and flats.
>
> Yes, but most novices with no knowledge of lilypond or
> music
> theory won't be writing in 5 sharps or flats, double-sharps
> or
> flats, or b/c e/f sharp/flats.
These accidentals are common. B-sharp crops up in jazz tunes, even in c major,
as a lower chromatic neighbor to c-sharp in a little tinkling
over an A7 chord. If it's repeated within a measure, you don't have to
know any music theory at all to realize that b-sharp to c-sharp
is a lot easier to read than alternating natural- and sharp-signs in
front of what looks like a stationary note.
Using the black key/white key dichotomy makes other sharps/flats seem
more exotic than they are, which leads to poor notation when
unnecessarily avoiding them.
>
>
> > What about something like this:
>
> > If the above seems confusing, imagine someone asks you
> for the first
> > four notes of Beethoven's fifth. If you say, "g,
> g, g, e-flat," you
> > are correct. However, if you say "g, g, g, e,"
> you are wrong and
> > will be corrected by any theory teacher within a
> fifty-foot radius as
> > follows:
> > "That's an e-flat, not an e. Have a look at the
> key signature."
> >
> > Unlike the theory teacher above, Lilypond doesn't know
> the answers ahead
> > of time and assumes you know what you're doing.
> The way you say
> > note-names out loud at sounding pitch corresponds
> directly to the
> > way you enter pitches into a Lilypond score. That
> means no matter what key
> > signature you put in front of it, Beethoven's fifth
> always starts with
> > g g g ees when input into a Lilypond score.
>
> Too verbose. It also relies on knowledge of
> Beethoven's fifth
> [symphony]. Do people in China know classical Western
> music that
> well? What about a banjo players who's only done
> fiddle tunes?
>
> It's true that the piano example won't be understood by
> somebody
> who's never seen a piano before, but at a certain point
> there's
> nothing we can do other than pointing people at a music
> theory
> website or whatever.
Yes, I agree with the points you make.
I would just add that there is a big discrepancy between GUI notation
programs and Lilypond regarding this issue. In a GUI program if you're
in d-major and you enter a note on the top line of the treble clef, it's
an f-sharp by default. But after re-reading the LM I think it's pretty
clear on these issues, so that someone "making the switch" need only read
and reflect.
-Jonathan
>
> Cheers,
> - Graham
>
- Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals, (continued)
- Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals, Reinhold Kainhofer, 2009/08/31
- Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals, Francisco Vila, 2009/08/31
- Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals, Graham Percival, 2009/08/28
- Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals, Leonardo Herrera, 2009/08/25
- Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals, Graham Percival, 2009/08/25
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals, Reinhold Kainhofer, 2009/08/25
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals, Jonathan Wilkes, 2009/08/28
Re: Accidentals: Unwanted naturals, Jonathan Wilkes, 2009/08/31