Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 115, Issue 5

[Jonathan Wilkes]

> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:19:47 +0200
> From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> 
> Jonathan Wilkes <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> You should have a look at the website for Ardour if you haven't
>> already.? Paul has a little bar that fills up toward a monthly total,
>> and has an easy donation method that is highly visible.? You might
>> also want to get in touch with him to get some details on how that
>> process has worked for Ardour.
>> 
>> If you end up implementing something like that on the Lilypond
>> website,?I'll donate the first $100.
> 
> If we put a full-page ad for proprietary software on the LilyPond
> website and offer only crippled binaries for Windows/MacOSX unless you
> donate first, I'll be in wild protest.
> 
> Anyway, I am _one_ developer of several, and it would be inappropriate
> to turn the LilyPond website into a personal payment collector for
> myself.  And Paul Davis runs a decidedly larger part (and also has
> larger responsibilities) with the Ardour show than I do with LilyPond.

It doesn't have to be part of the Lilypond website.  The link you already 
have could go to your own page that has the little bar I referred to and a 
button to make a donation through paypal.  Of course that would require 
work and upkeep on your part.  That's why I suggested contacting Paul-- 
maybe he can give you tips on what the easiest process is to set 
something like that up. (In fact I think there's a thread on the forum about 
just that topic.)

-Jonathan

> 
> -- 
> David Kastrup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:05:02 +0200
> From: Janek Warcho? <address@hidden>
> To: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
> Message-ID:
>     <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:19 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Anyway, I am _one_ developer of several, and it would be inappropriate
>> to turn the LilyPond website into a personal payment collector for
>> myself. ?And Paul Davis runs a decidedly larger part (and also has
>> larger responsibilities) with the Ardour show than I do with LilyPond.
> 
> David's right.  However, i think it would be ok to add a "monthly
> donations progress bar" on the sponsoring subpage
> (http://www.lilypond.org/sponsoring.html), under David's name.
> What do you think?  To me this would be more like information than an ad.
> 
> cheers,
> Janek
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 22:20:40 +0100
> From: Graham Percival <address@hidden>
> To: Janek Warcho? <address@hidden>
> Cc: David Kastrup <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:05:02PM +0200, Janek Warcho? wrote:
>> David's right.  However, i think it would be ok to add a "monthly
>> donations progress bar" on the sponsoring subpage
>> (http://www.lilypond.org/sponsoring.html), under David's name.
>> What do you think?  To me this would be more like information than an ad.
> 
> If David wants to have a webpage for additional sponsorship info,
> he can sign up for a free amazon web service account and get
> apache running.  Or stick it on lilynet.net.  Actually, it seems a
> shame that most of his funding details are buried in the lilypond
> reports, so on a personal level I'd encourage him to have some
> more "permanent" place for the latest funding info.  And lilynet
> is a good place for "experimental" / "unofficial" stuff.
> 
> But can we stop arguing about commercializing lilypond.org?  As a
> result of a fair amount of arguments, we have a sponsorship page.
> Do you really want to re-open that debate?  after only a few
> months?  I'm pretty sick of that topic.
> 
> - Graham
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:53:00 -0400
> From: Louis Guillaume <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Multiple tensions in Chord Mode
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> On 5/28/12 6:38 PM, address@hidden wrote:
>> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 09:48:29AM -0400, Louis Guillaume wrote:
>>> 
>>> There is, however, one thing that I find impossible, that is, having 
> two
>>> of the same tension in the chord symbol expression. There is a single
>>> case I can think of and that is having both flat-nine and sharp-nine on
>>> a dominant chord. e.g.
>>> 
>>>     In chord mode:
>>> 
>>>       c:7.9-.9+
>>> 
>>>     In regular markup:
>>> 
>>>       <c e g bes des' dis'>
>>> 
>>> Both of these produce a chord symbol AND chord without the flat-nine. 
> It
>>> seems to only accommodate one 9th, and uses the last one encountered.
>>> 
>>> Is there a way to do work around this?
>>> 
>>> Louis
>> 
>> Hi, Louis.
>> 
>> If I may start with a bit of humble philosophy, when I see a flat
>> 9 especially, I almost always conclude that the tonality will
>> include a sharp 9 as well, simply because of the dissonance that
>> would result from having the flat 9 competing against an
>> unaltered 9.
> 
> Not to mention the root, which is smunched up with those!
> 
>> Not to say that it could never happen, it just
>> strikes me as being rare.  This doesn't necessarily work the
>> other way around.  A sharp 9 chord to me would normally imply a
>> normal 9 also, unless inspection of the melody or harmony
>> suggests a flat 9 would be more appropriate, in which case I'll
>> grumble that the arranger should have written a flat 9.
> 
> But maybe [s]he doesn't want you anywhere near the flat nine :). At 
> least for your part. We are talking chord symbols so there's expected 
> interpretation. I think when tensions are explicitly described on a 
> part, they are not subject to as much interpretation as if you were 
> playing off a lead-sheet.
> 
>> In summary, IMHO:
>> 
>> flat 9 = flat 9 and usually sharp 9 also
>> sharp 9 = sharp 9 and usually natural 9 (or 2)
> 
> I think that's accurate for the most part. Obviously there's a lot of 
> interpretation involved with this kind of thing.
> 
>> If you want a flat 9 sharp 9 chord, consider using a flat 9 and
>> leaving the sharp 9 implied.  This is especially appropriate if
>> the key signature implies a sharp 9 (C7 b9 in key of Db, Bb or Ab
>> for example)
> 
> I see the suggestion you're making, but this is where we diverge from 
> the philosophical and get practical!
> 
>> IMHO, this situation also arises around flat fifths -- a flat
>> fifth would almost always cause me to assume a sharp fifth as
>> well.
> 
> I'm not so sure about that. Certainly there's no natural 5th (it's 
> been 
> explicitly flattened), but the 6th could certainly be natural. Consider 
> the mode "c d e f ges a bes".
> 
>> C7 b5 often implies a whole-tone scale (c d e ges aes bes
>> c).  However, I don't make this assumption about sharp 11 chords.
>> I assume that sharp 11 chords are chosen to make the fourth tone
>> of the mode be only a half step away from the perfect fifth,
>> Lydian-style.
> 
> Yes 7,#11 chords are almost certainly Lydian-flat-seven.
> 
>> Anyway, having tried my best to talk you out of it, :) I can
>> understand your desire to explicitly call out both alterations
>> when necessary.  I experimented quite a bit with this and learned
>> a lot about the extent of the gap in my knowledge about lilypond
>> chordmode and chord naming.
>> 
>> I use jazz-chords.ily instead of pop-chords.ly, but ....
>> 
>> Look in your pop-chords.ly file for a chord defined as
>> <c e g bes cis' dis'>    If you find it, comment out that 
> chord
>> markup.  If you don't find it, double check for alternate
>> enharmonic spellings.  If you still can't find it, perhaps it's
>> not in pop-chords.ly.
> 
> My pop-chords.ly has been heavily modified! I have the chord in there, 
> but without that voicing.
> 
>> In my jazz-chords.ily I inserted this instead, with a slight
>> spelling difference of des here instead of cis above:
>> 
>>           <c e g bes des' dis'>-\markup\jcRaise{ 
> "7(" \jcFlat "9" \jcSharp "9)" }
>> 
>> For pop-chords.ly, the \jc* functions don't exist, so use this
>> in pop-chords.ly:
>> 
>>           <c e g bes des' dis'>-\markup { "7" 
> \chordFlat "9" \chordSharp "9" }
>> 
>> Now the strangest thing that I ran into was that I do not know
>> how (and could not find a way) to describe those notes in
>> \chordmode.  As your message suggested, it appears that chordmode
>> can handle only one alteration per scale degree, and it seems
>> that a later alteration overrides any earlier alteration for a given
>> scale tone.  Further strangeness arose when I realized that
>> spelling the same chord pitches in different order changes the
>> way the chord markup is selected.
>> 
>> However, the following snippet produces the correct markup,
>> although the inability to use a \chordmode representation of
>> those notes may prove to be inconvenient.  I don't have the
>> expertise to say whether the fact that identical chord pitches
>> (shown as identically engraved chords) specified in a different
>> sequence causes the chord naming functions to assign different
>> markup to the chord.  Could be seen as a feature by some, I
>> suppose.
>> 
>> I hope this helps.  It was an interesting learning experience.
> 
> It certainly does, Jim. Thanks for taking the time!
> 
> I'll try to get this working this weekend and report back...
> 
> Louis
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> 
> 
> End of lilypond-user Digest, Vol 115, Issue 5
> *********************************************
>