Re: absolute pitch entry: accept an offset octave (issue 235010043 by address@hidden)

[David Kastrup]

Joram <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi,
>
> it might not be obvious to strangers to the Helmholtz pitch notation
> system [1], but shifting the octave is *not* absolute.

LilyPond does not really employ the Helmholtz pitch notation system.  We
write c, instead of C and c,, instead of C with a subscripted I and c,,,
instead of C with a subscripted II.

While Helmholtz discusses the absolute and relative character of _keys_
(mentioning that the tunings of bowed string instruments and brass
instruments are based on some natural intervals), I don't see him using
"absolute" in respect to octaves (cf "Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen
als physiologischer Grundlage für die Theorie der Musik", 37MB scanned
PDF at
<URL:http://www.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/indexer-vvv/wasbleibt/27162822>
and a few text extracts at
<URL:http://www.kilchb.de/rein_helmholtz.html>).

> So the input \absolute c'' { c' } for c''' is a contradiction in
> itself.

Shrug.  What LilyPond deems "\relative" bears no relation whatsoever to
"relativity" in any known notational system.  So I don't see the point
in obsessing about an optional modification of "\absolute" input.

\absolute c'' is proposed as a notational convenience.

Nobody complains that \absolute \transpose c es { c d e } is a
contradiction in itself since it does not refer to the absolute key c
\major.

> That’s why I strongly recommend not to use \absolute for some kind of
> non-absolute notation.

Well, that's one argument based on personal associations.  I don't say
that it is invalid, but we are talking about a tradeoff here.  Another
argument is that we don't want to introduce too many different commands
for what amounts to a consistent variation on one concept.  Basically we
have to decide between the following schemes:

a)
\relative { c'' g' e c }
\relative f { c'' f' e c }
\relative c'' { c g' e c }
\absolute { c'' g'' e'' c'' }
\fixed c { c'' g'' e'' c'' }
\fixed c'' { c g e c }

b)
\relative { c'' g' e c }
\relative f { c'' f' e c }
\relative c'' { c g' e c }
\absolute { c'' g'' e'' c'' }
\fixed { c'' g'' e'' c'' }
\fixed c { c'' g'' e'' c'' }
\fixed c'' { c g e c }

c)
\relative { c'' g' e c }
\relative f { c'' f' e c }
\relative c'' { c g' e c }
\absolute { c'' g'' e'' c'' }
\absolute c { c'' g'' e'' c'' }
\absolute c'' { c g e c }

d)
\relative { c'' g' e c }
\relative f { c'' f' e c }
\relative c'' { c g' e c }
\fixed { c'' g'' e'' c'' }
\fixed c { c'' g'' e'' c'' }
\fixed c'' { c g e c }

Of course, plus the variations you get when replacing \fixed with
yet-another option like \octave.

So basically the question is whether to work with three commands instead
of the previous two, whether to retire the previous \absolute
altogether, and whether, when working with three commands, whether the
octave reference "c" should be optional, making \absolute redundant.

Personally, I am strongly of the opinion that neither working with (and
documenting) three commands (as well as the introduced notational and/or
conceptual redundancy) nor retiring the preexisting \absolute are worth
the trouble and amount of nitpickishness they cause.  Whatever we arrive
at, someone™ will need to document the resulting options in the manuals
and answer questions coming up on the user lists.

All of that is a _tradeoff_ rather than an absolute argument.  Which is
why it is unlikely we'll arrive at a consensual decision which is why I
proposed putting it up for vote on the user list.

-- 
David Kastrup