I'd say it's up to more than just the performer's ear to make the distinction. If you spend much time listening to music where enharmonic notes are rounded to a median, the ability of the listener/performer to distinguish the difference diminishes. So the audience is just as at fault at not hearing the difference between our enharmonic notes as the performers.
On Dec 10, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Michael Ellis wrote: Yes! Spelling does count because poorly spelled music is much harder to read. I'm somewhat less convinced regarding sonic differences on untempered instruments because the matter is more complicated than that, e.g G# as the leading tone to A is different from G# as the third of E. In practice, it comes down to the performer's ear to make those distinctions. So, for me at least, readability is the primary consideration. For those who care about such things, here's a link to the best article I've seen on the subject. It's by Bert Ligon, head of the Jazz Studies department at the University of South Carolina College of Music.
MUSIC SPELL CHECK? PURPOSEFUL ACCIDENTALS
Cheers, Mike
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:55 PM, James Bailey <address@hidden> wrote:
Because spelling counts! D# and E♭may sound the same (on a tempered instrument) but they are two very different notes. And an performer playing an instrument that can distinguish between the two, should.
On Dec 10, 2010, at 6:18 PM, Michael Ellis wrote:
Why not set one of the notes to a different enharmonic pitch? It's certainly much kinder to the musician who's trying to play the composition.
{ \clef treble
\time 4/4 << { fs'4 } \\ { es'4 } >> }
Cheers,
Mike
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> wrote:
Please reply to the user group as well.
As is often pointed out, it's free software and the fixes depend on who is working for nothing on the code.
I wouldn't think it would crop up frequently.
I made a workaround with a combination of forcing the accidentals to be displayed, and then using force-hshift and extra-offset and a few other tweaks to make it work.
My example is pretty complicated, because I also autogenerate the code, but you're welcome to a copy if you want.
--
Phil Holmes
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Odd output
Thanks!
I can't believe that this is seen as a low priority enhancement...! This
completely renders lilypond unusable for the task I need it, which is to serve
as a printer for computer generated music. The output is not ugly - it is
plain wrong!
Why doesn't the accidental_engraver looks into other voices as well?
Maybe I can workaround it by doing an extra pass before writing the lilypond
code to check if this kind of problem may occur... But now I wonder what other
kind of potential problems may occur with this accidental_engraver
algorithm...
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I think this problem deserves more
consideration.
Thank you!
Marco
On Friday 10 December 2010, you wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Correia" < address@hidden>
To: < address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 12:35 AM
Subject: Odd output
> Hi,
>
> I just started using lilypond, so it is very possible that I'm making
> some mistake.
>
> When compiling this example:
>
> \include " english.ly"
> {
> \clef treble
> \time 4/4
> <<
> { fs'4 }
> \\
> { f'4 }
>
> }
>
> I see two notes on fs (occupying the same position but with stems up > and
> down). There is no indication that f is there.
>
> Is this supposed to/ how do I fix it?
>
> Thanks!
> Marco
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
|