Re: quick note insert in Emacs

[nicolas . sceaux]

(sorry if that thread is estimated a bit off-topic for the list)

Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:11:05 -0500, tu as dit : 

 > I have some suggestions.  One is to use c7 for c16, c5 for c32, c0 for 
 > c64 and c9 for c128.  The mnemonic is to add the first and last digits. 

this can already be done by redefining key bindings in the user's .emacs
file for instance. (by default, here is how it works now: c1->c1
c2->c2 c3->c4 c4->c8 c5->c16 c6->c32 c7->c64 c8->c128)

 > That way you can eliminate many instances of pressing the spacebar if 
 > you have a separate (minor mode?) for adding fingering.
 > IOW:  

 > c'777c,5d would produce c'16 c'16 c'16 c32 d32 with 10 keystrokes 
 > rather than the 16 to get c'16 c c c,32 d    , which is usually harder 
 > to read. The single keypress 8 could repeat  <<c8 e g>> or <<c e g>>8 

supposing that pitch keys are a b c d e f g, and duration keys the
ones you exposed, the 8-key-long sequence "c7ccc,5d" (the default
octave at the beginning being c'-->b') produces the output (with
absolute octaves) "c'16 c' c' c32 d", which is equivalent to what you
want. (I may add something to force durations to be written for all
notes if the user likes.) It's quite quick.

I chosed the following (arbitrary) behaviour: pitch keys actually
insert a new note, duration/octave/dot/alteration keys modify the
previously inserted note. It's due to my personnal wicknesses : I
found pitches easier to be found by my fingers (it's like on a piano),
than durations, which often require an extra thinking for me. As I
make more mistakes with durations, I want them to be corrected faster.
That is the case, with the way I chosed. (I don't know if I explain
myself clearly.) I may add other behaviours, with <duration-key>
inserting a new note with the given duration, and C-<duration-key> 
modifying the previous note duration, for instance. 

 > Suggestion two is to use relative pitch to enter the music but have the 
 > result not be relative, because relative pitch is quicker to enter but 
 > far nastier to work with after it is entered.  Apologies if you did 
 > that already, but using either instead of both is more confusing, I 
 > think.  That is because relative pitch is best thought of as an editing 
 > tool rather than a preprocessor.

Actually, the typing is always done with relative octaves (that's why
relative octaves are interesting), absolute/relative here applies to
the output. In both mode, when you type a `g' after a `c', it is the
`g' the octave below, that is "c g" with relative octave output, or
"c'' g'" (for instance) with absolute octave output. the two options
are possible in order to give the user the choice... I agree that
absolute octave output is certainly less confusing for the reader.

 > While you're at it, :-)

 > there is a need for a transposing tool.  Someone else asked for that 
 > recently, and hints were given how it might be done.  Sometimes you may 
 > want to produce a phrase in a different key even in a different voice 
 > on the same staff, and \transpose is no help with that sort of thing.  
 > It's just for transposing instruments, and no help for tasks more 
 > related to composition.

This is a bit more difficult, as it requires reading, rather than just
writing. But I was also thinking about doing something like that (for
emacs, though).

nicolas