Re: [PATCH] Doc: Further Reading for contemporary music

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 11:22:42PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Joseph Wakeling wrote Sunday, September 06, 2009 10:36 PM
>
>> This probably _is_ something which should be in the docs as it's not
>> something you would imagine would be a solution.
>
> Could you let me have a suitable form of words?  I suggest a new
> section in the CG - 1.3.3 Mailing a patch.

No; dump it in the Advanced git section.  It's not something we
want to insist that first-time contributors do.  Once they show
themselves to be regular, and get more excited about seeing their
work being added to the official docs, *then* we'll ask them to do
this.  Get them hooked first.

>> As for the patch: this particular part of the contemporary music docs
>> ('Further reading') is something it would be great for other people to
>> pitch in on.  I've split the section into two: on the one hand books 
>> and
>> articles (including webpages) that are useful; on the other, scores and
>> musical extracts (again, possibly including online examples) that are
>> interesting with respect to learning about contemporary notation.
>
> This information is undeniably useful, but I'm not sure it should
> be part of the *LilyPond* Notation Reference.  We haven't included
> external references like this elsewhere, yet the Stone and Read books
> are very general and useful to all kinds of musical notation.
>
> I'll wait for comment from Graham (and others) before pushing this.

Hmm.  I'd forgotten (and still can't remember!) that World music
had such a section.  At the very minimum, that section should be
renamed to "Further reading for arabic music" or "Arabic future
reading" or something like that.

We *do* have a bibliography, although it wasn't obvious to find it
in the past, and with the doc rearranging it's not current
findable at all (it's not even getting built).  Carl made
reference to it (with respect to the Stone book, IIRC) somewhere
in the Chords chapter, IIRC.


In the case of Arabic music, I think part of the argument (in
favor) was that the notation isn't standard, but the author(s) did
the best they could, and people interested in seeing the
inconsistencies can progress to X, Y, and Z.  It's also only one
page... I could see a section on contemporary music easily
becoming a monster.  Especially if it includes scores.

I guess I just don't have any firm feelings on this at the moment.

Cheers,
- Graham