bug-lilypond
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Not a duration. Why not?


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Not a duration. Why not?
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:25:25 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux)

"Boris Shingarov" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:31:42  0000 (UTC), Trevor Skeggs  wrote:
>
>>     Why should 3 not be a valid duration, mid-way between 2 and 4?
>  >     (It would have the same value as a dotted 4). >
>  >     After all, if the program is going to the trouble of weeding-out
>  >     these values and printing an error message, it may just as well
>  >     substitute the code for a dotted 4 !
>  
> No, 3 may not substitute a dotted 4, because a dotted 4 is a longer
> duration than a 3.  If 1 means a whole note ("semibreve"), 2 means
> half of whole note, 4 means quarter, then 3 should mean one third
> (triplet minim).  It is different in duration, and musically sounds
> different, from a dotted crotchet.  
>>     Similarly, 6 should be a valid code equivalent to a dotted
>> eigth-note. 
>  
> Again, 6 logically should mean a triplet crotchet.  It sounds very
> different from a dotted quaver.  
> As to why 3 and 6 produce an error message, I have no idea.  I'd
> logically/intuitively expect them to be valid codes standing for a
> triplet minim and a triplet crotchet, respectively.  

That view is far too mathematical.  1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 are symbols
for particular note lengths with a visible representation, without
numeric interpretation.  3, 5, 6, 7... don't have visual representations
associated with them.  One of the strengths of Lilypond is that you
should be able to quote reasonably simple input to a musician without
Lilypond knowledge, and he'll be able to figure out what you mean.

3 and its ilk don't really fit into that category.  Too clever.

-- 
David Kastrup





reply via email to

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