Re: GDP: six

[Eyolf Østrem]

On 14.09.2007 (13:10), Graham Percival wrote:
> Eyolf Østrem wrote:
> >I don't like the sectioning of this one. Why is "Transpose" and
> >"Instrument transpositions" split up? It doesn't make sense to me.
> >Ottava brackets should also belong here somewhere.

> Instrument transpositions affects how pitches are displayed in cues and on 
> midi.  Ottava displays how pitches are displayed.

> Transpose affects the actual _pitches_.  Remember our distinction between 
> content and presentation.

> { fis''' }
> is that note, regardless of instrument transpositions or ottava.  If we 
> stick \transpose, then fis''' will produce a different pitch.

Yes, but where are people going to be looking for it? Better to have
it under the same heading and explain that distinction there, instead
of having them scurrying from place to place between technically
distinct but conceptually related items.


> >Also, "Changing multiple pitches" -- it sounds precise, but it isn't
> >necessarily so. At least it sounds unnecessarily complex

> I'm not wild about that name; please suggest an alternative.

My suggestion is (a) to let go of that level of sectioning, or (b) if
that isn't viable, call that section "octaves and transposition" or
something.

> >Join "Note names in other languages" with "Writing pitches" - that's
> >where it belongs.

> "Note names in other languages" _is_ in "writing pitches".    

Sorry, I meant "Normal pitches" -- to a spaniard, "si" IS the normal
pitch, that's what I was getting at.

> >That leaves Clef and Key signature, which might come first -- since
> >it's fairly fundamental -- or last, since it falls a little on the
> >side of the other items. Thus:

> Again, these clearly affect the way we _display_ pitches, not the actual 
> _pitches_ themselves.

To me, this borders on the level of technicalities. Much as I
appreciate the absolute pitch approach of Lilypond, I'm not so sure if
it enhances the usability of the manual to enforce that distinction in
how the material is presented. After all, "cis" IS not the actual
pitch itself either, it's some letters that are used to *represent*
(sounding) pitches in a different (written) notation.
But these theoretical issues apart, my main concern is with what to
me appears as unnecessary fragmentation. Then again, it's no hanging
matter. 

> >                   + Repeats and MIDI
> >I wonder: isn't it more natural to gather the midi stuff in one place
> >and just have a cross reference here?

> Repeats is slated for a huge rewrite anyway.  I have no objection 
> whatsoever to removing this subsection and putting in a link.  But please 
> raise this issue again when we come to Repeats  (probably in 5 or 6 
> weeks), since I have many other issues to keep track of.

OK.

> > o 1.7 Educational use   (or "increasing readibility" ?)
> >I don't like this one, I must say. Neither font size, improvisation,
> >or shape notes or fingering have much to do with educational use in my
> >book. 

> They make the music easier to read.

Shape notes is not only about making it easier to read, is it? It's
closer to a notational system of its own. The affinities with
solmization are strong, and even though that too had an educational
function, it went way beyond that. 
Fingering: sure, it's educational too, but again, I wouldn't have
thought of looking for it there. How about in the instrument section
somewhere?  

> Again, I'm not wild about the section 
> name, as you can tell from the (?) in the name.

> >I think font size should go in a page layout section or something (at
> >least that's how I use it, but I can also see how it would fit here).
> >The sections are ok, I guess, but please don't call it all educational
> >use... How about "Appearance Tweaks" or something?

> hmm... I'd rather avoid the term "tweaks", since we use that elsewhere to 
> mean \override stuff.  "Modifying appearance for legibility" is too long.

What if one drops "for legibility" (since there can be many other
reasons to modify the appearance) and call it "modifying appearance"?


Eyolf

-- 
Debian is the Jedi operating system: "Always two there are, a master and
an apprentice".
                -- Simon Richter on debian-devel