lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Files from Lilypond workshop @ LAC 2013


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Files from Lilypond workshop @ LAC 2013
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 17:04:33 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

luis jure <address@hidden> writes:

> on 2013-05-21 at 09:26 PMA wrote:
>
>> I think a serious go at terminological precision
>> would note the distinction: pitch vs pitch-class.
>
> indeed. that's why in my first mail i said that pitch involves a specific
> octave. but i thought the intention was not covering the whole theory of
> music, but rather discussing how the word "pitch" is used in the lilypond
> manual.
>
> unlike david, i think lilypond's own glossary is correct:
>
> ===
> 1.235 pitch
>
> ES: altura, I: altezza, F: hauteur, D: Tonhöhe, NL: toonhoogte, DK:
> tonehøjde, S: tonhöjd, FI: sävelkorkeus.
>
> 1. The perceived quality of a sound that is primarily a function of its
> fundamental frequency.
> ===

It's not as much a matter of being correct, but rather of how this term
is employed within LilyPond and its documentation.  LilyPond also uses
"event" in a meaning that contrary to common usage does not include
birthday celebrations.

So the problem of the glossary entry is not that it's "wrong" but rather
that it is not of much help for understanding LilyPond.

> the problem i see is that then in the manual the term is used too
> loosely, often in a way that is not quite correct. often it's used to
> mean what i would call simply "note name".

That's not how I'd characterize the problem.

> anyway, i didn't bring this up, the discussion began with the use of
> the term in florian's presentation (by the way, i found the
> presentation very good). i jumped in just because terminological
> precision in music theory is one of my favorites pastimes...

Sure, but I'm afraid that your perceived lack of precision is something
that it is hard to find Florian at fault for since he is working with
the terminology employed by LilyPond.

You might want to take a thorough look at the LilyPond manual and try
whether you see a feasible strategy for amending what you see as a
fault.

-- 
David Kastrup




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]