Re: add some rarely used mensural clefs (issue 330120043 by address@hidden)

[pkx166h]

On 2017/09/12 10:52:20, mail_philholmes.net wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mailto:address@hidden>
> To: <mailto:address@hidden>
> Cc: <mailto:address@hidden>;
<mailto:address@hidden>
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 2:02 PM
> Subject: Re: add some rarely used mensural clefs (issue 330120043
> mailto:address@hidden)


> >I am updating the doc to include these new clefs (and add all ancient
> > clefs to appendix A10 and I noticed some identical outputs for
> > 'different' clef names.
> >
> >
> > https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/diff/1/scm/parser-clef.scm
> > File scm/parser-clef.scm (right):
> >
> >
https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/diff/1/scm/parser-clef.scm#newcode96
> > scm/parser-clef.scm:96: ("petrucci-g2" . ("clefs.petrucci.g" -2 0))
> > Is this correct?
> >
> > I know nothing about ancient notation, but it seems that
"petrucci-g2"
> > is identical "petrucci-g" (below) apart from using 'g2' instead of
'g1'.
> >
> > On a similar note I can see that petrucci-f and f4 also are
identical
> > (and produce the same output).
> >
> > https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/


> I just put a long comment on the issue tracker about this, but got
"spambot
> protection engaged" and it appeared to junk my comments.  So I'll try
again.

> James - there's more work to be done here, I'm afraid.  The mensural
clef
> table that you've replaced with some examples - most of the examples
aren't
> actually mensural clefs, they're Gregorian.  In this part of the NR
you
> should _only_ have clefs with "mensural in their name".  Further down
in the
> NR there is a section on Gregorian clefs and this should almost
certainly be
> updated in the same way as you have done in the mensural clefs
section.
> However, it's worth looking at the code that is used to create this
section
> currently - you'll see that the example notes are different from the
ones
> you've used in the appendix.  This is because mensural notes would not
be
> used in Gregorian music, so the appendix needs updating to use the
same note
> types as the existing table in the Gregorian clef section of the NR.

> Hope this is useful and please shout if you want further information
or
> help.

> --
> Phil Holmes


Phil, whatever you can offer to help. I know nothing about Ancient music
typesetting and was just basing my additions on what was already in the
NR. I had asked a few years ago for some help with the Ancient music NR
section as it really is looking rather odd and has not had any of the
tidying up work that I did with Graham all those years ago because only
a few people knew enough to know what was wrong or could be improved.

I assumed (incorrectly as it turned out) that the #'mensural value was
generic for all ancient music types and that it was the clef
name/settings that made the output 'Gregorian' vs 'Mensural'. :)
Although there are a lot of diffs, they are mainly just cut/paste edits
so if you can give me some broad education on what values I need to use
for a given set of keys sigs that should be enough than you go through
every single edit line by line.

I ordered the clefs as they appeared in the scm file rather than any
alphabetical or notational style order. I figured it would be easier to
correct someone's work than get a developer to do the edits themselves,
so have at it, let me know what I need to change.

To save you (and anyone else who may want to help) you can download what
the table looks like when it is compiled from here:

https://cloud.woelkli.com/s/dBGXat0NEGVoy5C

This is just that Clef section in the appendix so it is a small PDF.

Otherwise tell me what I need to fix or what is not correct etc.

If you think removing notes would be better (in this appendix) then I
can simply use 'spacers' (or if lilypond-book allows it, nothing at
all).

James



https://codereview.appspot.com/330120043/