Re: Shape of individual ties in chords

[David Kastrup]

Eluze <address@hidden> writes:

> Richard Shann-2 wrote
>> [...] 
>> I noticed the mysterious synatx q that appears. I tried looking this up in
>> the two indices
>> without success. 
>> [...] 
>>  I wonder what exactly it is all about
>> and why I can't find it documented...
>
> searching for the *word* q would help:
>
> one place you'll find it is /E. LilyPond index/ , but in /D. LilyPond
> command index/ it's missing, indeed
>
> I wonder, after the introduction of repeating pitches and chords with
> a simple duration in 2.19.1(?), if there is good reason to keep this
> command!?

It's different.  For one thing, it's chord-only, so it helps in
situations like

{ \partial 8 g8 | <c' e' g' >4 r8 g <c' e' g'>4 r8 g | <c' e' g'>1 | }

In particular the "Oom-pah" kind of "alternating basses" accompaniment
used with accordions and also in a number of basic piano styles (like
ragtime) benefit (it makes it quite easier to recognize in the input
that the interspersed chords remain identical).

{ c <g c' e' > g, <g c' e'> ...

For another, q carries forward articulations (and on demand, fingering,
though this could be made less relevant when someone chooses to work on
issue <URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3662>).

The main incentive for doing the "fascinating rhythm" patch was not
actually being able to simplify repeated pitches, but to have a
representation for purely rhythmic material.

Of course, with things like

    tamb 4. 8 4 4

there is a bit of overlap since it _starts_ with a "pitch" that is later
"repeated" throughout the part.

It's conceivable that if pure rhythms were present before chord
repetitions, the latter would not have made it off the ground (even
alternating basses can be written as
{ << { c4 s g, s }
     { s <g c' e'> s4 4 } >> }
if you really _must_).  But the cat seems out of the bag far enough that
there is no point in stuffing it back again.

-- 
David Kastrup