RE: GPD: official shortest note in lilypond

[Carl D. Sorensen]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Han-Wen Nienhuys [mailto:address@hidden 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:05 AM
> To: Graham Percival
> Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden; 
> address@hidden; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: GPD: official shortest note in lilypond
> 
> 
> For unbeamed notes, we have to draw the line somewhere, and 
> it's at 64th right now. If someone can show a reasonable use 
> for 128th we
> *might* consider it, but my initial reaction is that you 
> should reconsider your use of notation
> 

I don't have an axe to grind here, as I've never used anything smaller
than a 32nd in music I've worked with.

I did notice, however, when I looked at the Plaine and Easie format
specification, <http://www.iaml.info/files/plaine_easie_code.pdf> I
noticed that P&E supports up to a 128th note,  I also noticed that there
is no "name" for a 128th note; a 64th is a hemidemisemiquaver.

The lack of a name for a 128th note would indicate that a 64th is a
reasonable smallest note.  The presence of a 128th note in P&E syntax
might indicate that a 128th note is a reasonable smallest note.

The P&E format also clearly shows that the glyphs for flags are not
simply stacked to get smaller notes.

Carl Sorensen