Re: GDP: six

[Valentin Villenave]

2007/9/14, Graham Percival <address@hidden>:

> >  o 1.7 Educational use   (or "increasing readibility" ?)

> They make the music easier to read.  Again, I'm not wild about the
> section name, as you can tell from the (?) in the name.

> I'm quite happy with having a section that includes those subsections,
> but I'm seriously stumped as to what to call it.

Some time ago, I had proposed "Special effects", which was both fun
and attractive -- John seemed to like it.

However, "Educational use" is absolutely fine. I've seen many
reactions here, these past few days, which I honestly couldn't
understand at all (when people ranted against such terms as
"decorating", "educational", or Rune's idea of a funny, childish
logo).
I mean: come on! Wasn't any of you guys a kid once? Why should music
be *serious*stuff, and nothing else?

Let me rephrase: LilyPond *is* perfect for educational purposes. Face
it, once and for all. Playing with noteheads, staves appearance etc is
*great* for having fun when reading music, learning solfege, etc. I'm
speaking as a teacher (I work with both kids and grown-ups, sometimes
in the same room at the same time), but also as a former kid myself.

Sure, these notation effects are not reserved to education, as you
said Eyolf. You use some of them in your book, so do I in my opera,
and so on. But I think this would be a mistake to somehow hide the
wonderful educational resources of LilyPond, and I surely hope that
nobody here is trying to.

Just some thoughts that I wanted to share with you.

Regards,
Valentin