forwarded message from Han-Wen Nienhuys

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

(moved to lilypond-devel)

address@hidden writes:
> > > indications in rings in the notation and advanced
> > > players the names.  Nothing needs to be done about that.  
> > > I think it is better to use numbers for
> > > the strings in the tab syntax, because everyone knows or
> > > should know which one the 1st string is,
> > 
> > I think we had a big discussion about this some weeks ago, which
> > indicated that --your strong opinions notwithstanding-- there are
> > different conventions for numbering strings.
> 
> That's the point.  Everyone knows which the 1st string is.
> Look in any standard reference.  On a banjo, the 5th string
> is the short one, never the 1st.  The fact that there are
> a lot of people around who cannot be troubled to learn to
> read music at all
> does not rise to the level of "different conventions".  On

Are you suggesting that the replyers don't know how to "read music"?
(That would be a pretty strong accusation, which would effectively
kill the weight of the rest of your message.)

FWIW, I don't have any references that say anything about how strings
are supposed to be numbered.

> 2.  The pitch has nothing to do with
> tab.  Only the physical location of the string matters.
> 
> > and can be combined with fingerings (which is not possible
> > with the current setup);
> 
> You mean you have to choose between fingering in the notation
> and tab?  Why?  

ARRRGGGH ! WTF do you comment when you don't even know what issues
we're dealing with? This limitation has been there since we had tab
notation.

> [..]

> Please don't continue to reverse the strings.  It's embarrassing
> to be caught in such an error.  When you admit that you know
> nothing about the subject, you ought not to consider my
> intimate expert knowledge to be mere opinion.

I'm sorry to be so rude, but I have seen a lot of your expert
knowledge, and you continue to cloud that knowledge in so much
irrelevant verbiage that I have trouble distilling the useful bits of
information. I've come to the point that I stop reading after the 1st
paragraph when I can't connect your message and my questions.

Where we stand right now, is that we should have a means to store for
each note both the finger it uses, and the string it is played
on. Since all information stored has to be entered, the question is:
what syntax do we use for the string and what syntax for the fingers.

Right now, there is no syntax for string indication, the tablature
code supposes that the strings encoded by numbers, and that that
number is encoded in the fingering number, i.e.

           c4-3

will put a fingering  3 on the note in normal staff,  but put the note
on string 3 on the tab staff (whereever that is).

The current proposition is to use pitch names for indicating strings
and continue the use of numbers for fingerings, i.e.

        c4-3-a

play with 3rd finger, on string known as "a".

We haven't decided on a system for encoding the strings by pitches,
but supposedly, you could name them by the unfretted pitch (i.e. c e g
c' e' c'' on a guitar IIRC), or simply by letter, as in, a= 1st
string, b = 2nd string, etc. The first system seems nicer, but will be
more typing work. I think the 2nd system is better, albeit a little
kludgy.

Finally, for compatibility reasons, we could translate the old system
(string number = fingering number) to the new system. This also
provides a way of easy entry for instruments with many strings, i.e.

  \apply #fingering-to-string { c4-12 ... }

for playing on 12th string.

This is the proposal that we have for entry syntax, and this what we
want comments on. I'm not interested in the merits of sly, the use of
capostatos, assessments of the authority of your knowledge, or
self-invented syntax extensions for string tunings.


-- 

Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden   |   http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen