[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FW: Professional ???

From: Han-Wen Nienhuys
Subject: Re: FW: Professional ???
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:02:47 +0100

address@hidden writes:
> While specific medieval and renaissance music notational items are
> obvious features for lily (I might want to use them myself some day) I
> don't argue for adding graphic notational features since the scope of
> lilypond, as I recognize it, is clearly 'conventional' music fitting
> into well defined pitch- and duration patterns.

The scope of Lily is whatever we can reasonably implement; currently
this means that there has to be a well-defined rational duration
(otherwise \simultaneous doesn't make much sense), but we have to
relax that anyway in the future, to get better grace-note support.

> > I just don't want to see any suggestions
> discussion themes concerning lilypond I'll of course have to take note
> of that and then possibly unsubscribe from the list.

Guys, stop it. This is leading noone anywhere.

On a brighter (and equally off-topic) note: do drop by at the concert
of the Utrechts Wind Ensemble by if you happen to be in Utrecht (The
Netherlands) this Friday! We start at 20:30 in the Maria Minor Church,
Achter Clarenburg 6. We'll perform pieces by Strawinsky, Martland,
Jolivet, Andriessen and Van Manen.

Be happy! 


Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden    |

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]