Re: Streamlining my thoughts on the clarinet woodwind-diagrams

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 02/07/2013 09:22 PM, Wim van Dommelen wrote:
> Mmmh, that (lh . (gis)) is already taken for the upper key, using the same, not
> completly describing name will again confuse others.

OK, fair enough, clarinet-lh-low-gis is better, then.

> > I'd use clarinet-full-boehm as the name for the clarinet with low ees, and
> > make bass-clarinet an alias for that (or else, bass-clarinet is the full-boehm
> > instrument plus the "hole").
> The regular (soprano-)clarinet doesn't have a low-ees, so that order will not 
> work.

The regular one doesn't, the full-Boehm instrument does.  See e.g. this example:
http://www.clarinetsdirect.biz/RC-F279670.html

> Compatibility in the name?

Fair enough. :-)

> Yeah, but they (BC and S) have similar models running only to the low ees, same
> series, same name, matching the regular stencil, not the low. So which confusion
> is "better" explained.

OK, fair enough again.

> > Question: how do you translate the bass clarinet diagrams into key-name 
> > diagrams?
> I don't understand the complete question. Is that something other than the
> result you get with (the already present) \override #'(graphical . #f) as stated
> in the reference manual?

No, I don't mean "how" as in how does one request the override, I mean, what is 
your spec for what should appear?

> Isn't a chicken-and-egg combination? I spoke to my teacher today and she got the
> question of a composer "tell me what is possible?" as opposed to someone writing
> down something and the player having to find out how to do it. As the key
> corrects the lowest f (of a soprano-clarinet), it will probably not
> used/prescribed. But if some effect, whatever can be done with it, someone will
> use it sometime.
>
> But it is a little (much) too far, I agee.

Maybe, but it's probably best to get to the point of someone requesting it 
before it gets implemented.

> That is not that easy, it is not ly-code, but Scheme code and tougher (more and
> more stacked upon another) as I expected. The basic files involved are together
> already 3200 lines (some are comments, but 90% is code :-).

!