[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Tip: lyrics with polyphony / stem directions (without specifically i
From: |
Mark Dewey |
Subject: |
Re: Tip: lyrics with polyphony / stem directions (without specifically instantiated voices) |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:56:41 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) |
Mats Bengtsson wrote:
. . .
Mark, what do you say? Is the current example in the manual too complex so
that the main points are not clear enough? Should we replace that example
by Kieren's?
I didn't mean to imply anything about the documentation earlier.
But, since you asked . . .
Perhaps Kieren's example would be helpful instead. I'm not exactly sure. I'm
colorblind, though (slightly), so I don't know how much adding the color would
help me specifically. I think hints like color, size, and shape only help some
people, and only in some circumstances. For me, in this case, I think a
detailed explanation would be better.
It's not 'usually' the complexity of the documentation that causes problems for
me. It's normally just matters of syntax, what relates to what, and what means
what that I need clarification on (i.e. little specific details of how things
are implemented). I like details and specifics a lot (so a detailed
explanation isn't something I consider complicated, though I'm sure that's not
what you meant). A nested explanation might be something I'd consider
complicated.
For instance, the documentation says this:
. . .
<< \upper \\ \lower >>
is equivalent to
<<
\new Voice = "1" { \voiceOne \upper}
\new Voice = "2" { \voiceTwo \lower}
I think the \upper and \lower thing in the documentation is syntactically
confusing, without specifically saying they represent the notes there, seeing
as \upper and \lower are also used in the piano staff context, as people will
actually try to put \upper and \lower in their code (without instantiating
them).
I would recommend either replacing these with notes directly, or showing their instantiation above
the example (and explaining the significance of the voice names "1" and "2";
plus, a mention of when/why it is good to leave them out would be nice—maybe it's already mentioned
somewhere else, and if so, perhaps I might recommend pointing us there from here).
I might recommend adding an example like this somewhere below that:
<<{\voiceOne (upper notes here)} \new Voice {\voiceTwo (lower notes here)}>>
\oneVoice
is the preferred way over
<<{(upper notes here)} \\ {(lower notes here)}>>
for polyphonic chords used with lyrics, since the \\ method automatically gives the names "1" and
"2" to the voices, which are not the names of the voice the lyrics are following (i.e.
"sopranos", etc.)
Where to look for what, in the documentation generally, is also an issue at
times. I might recommend giving us some tips on how to find things (generally
speaking), and how to glean information, as it seems to be easier for you.
All in all, though, I didn't mean to bring up the documentation, myself. It
normally works well for me in connection with the forums—lately, at least. I
understand if you don't want to put this in the documentation (that's fine with
me)—after all, it is on the forums now in a way people who think like me could
find it.
(For the record, there are plenty of answers to similar questions in the
mailing list
archives, that show exactly the same construct. I'm surprised that you
didn't find them.)
I only found such as the links I included in one of the earlier posts of this
thread (but I only made a few different search criteria: i.e. polyphony lyrics,
and . . . I forgot what else). I didn't bother to look further since one of
the threads I saw made it look like a known issue that we just had to deal with
(and that's another reason I didn't look at the manual further; I had no reason
to believe I could find anything more on the subject there, because of what I
saw in the threads).
It's possible that I saw the answers/questions you mentioned, but thought they
were talking about something else, or something irrelevant. I mean, it could
have been a matter of semantics. People are easy to misunderstand (especially
when they talk about familiar things with unfamiliar terminology).
As long as I know what I want, though, the clarity of the documentation isn't a
'huge' deal for me, seeing as I don't view documentation in the same light as a
tutorial (I mean, it seems more for advanced reference than a teaching aid for
new and semi-intermediate users). I'm at a point where things are becoming
more clear and using the documentation for reference isn't that bad
(understanding how voices works helps a lot for this; I think this is probably
one of the most important sections to make clear, and add detail). I mean, the
documentation seems to require a certain amount of knowledge about LilyPond in
order to learn (some sections more than others) as sometimes answers are given
using principles the learner may not have learned yet.
Documentation isn't something I generally expect to read through in a linear
fashion (usually I use it more on a want/need-to-know basis), while a tutorial
or a textbook is. Is one supposed to read the documentation in a linear
fashion? I don't know, personally, but the knowledge would be extremely
helpful, now that I consider it. I mean, do present parts only reference
future parts due to the assumption that past parts are known? This would be
useful to know, especially for beginners. That way, one could expect to start
from the beginning, or if the contrary be the case, know that it doesn't matter
where one starts. If it is linear (like a college textbook), and if we are
meant to read it through and through, this could explain why a lot of people
ask questions about things they should know, and why the documentation seems
daunting for many: because they don't know it's linear, if it is, I mean. I
myself, have not read the beginning, nor anything in any particular or
der: I generally just look for what I want to know while I'm on a project (and
I'm sure many others do that, too).
Anyway, thanks for the help, and do well!
Sorry if I've misunderstood something, or haven't researched all I should have
quite.
- Tip: lyrics with polyphony / stem directions (without specifically instantiated voices), Mark Dewey, 2007/08/29
- Re: Tip: lyrics with polyphony / stem directions (without specifically instantiated voices), Kieren MacMillan, 2007/08/29
- Re: Tip: lyrics with polyphony / stem directions (without specifically instantiated voices), Mark Dewey, 2007/08/29
- Re: Tip: lyrics with polyphony / stem directions (without specifically instantiated voices), Kieren MacMillan, 2007/08/29
- Re: Tip: lyrics with polyphony / stem directions (without specifically instantiated voices), Mark Dewey, 2007/08/29
- Re: Tip: lyrics with polyphony / stem directions (without specifically instantiated voices), Kieren MacMillan, 2007/08/29
- Re: Tip: lyrics with polyphony / stem directions (without specifically instantiated voices), Mats Bengtsson, 2007/08/30
- Re: Tip: lyrics with polyphony / stem directions (without specifically instantiated voices), Mats Bengtsson, 2007/08/30
- Re: Tip: lyrics with polyphony / stem directions (without specifically instantiated voices),
Mark Dewey <=
- Re: Tip: lyrics with polyphony / stem directions (without specifically instantiated voices), Graham Percival, 2007/08/30
- color in the manual (was: Tip: lyrics with polyphony / stem directions (without specifically instantiated voices)), Graham Percival, 2007/08/30
- Re: color in the manual, Mats Bengtsson, 2007/08/30
- Re: color in the manual (was: Tip: lyrics with polyphony / stem directions (without specifically instantiated voices)), Kieren MacMillan, 2007/08/30