Re: Remove arabic.ly from common note name languages. (issue2755041)

[Hans Aberg]

On 28 Oct 2010, at 00:20, Valentin Villenave wrote:

> > Just mentioning it. When LilyPond expand being capable of handling  
> > more
> > music outside CPP, there might be more such details [popping] up.
>
> (no comment)

Sorry, a typo. :-)

> Hans, you always have very interesting things to say on these
> subjects.

That is kind said of you.

> However, since we're drifting waaay beyond my area of
> expertise here (if I ever had one), could you please be a tad more
> specific and suggest, concretely, how I can improve the documentation
> for makam tunings and maqam modes?

Perhaps by pointing out the specifics of the LilyPond implementation.

> I'm fine with adding precise references and explaining what the
> different systems are, why we use AEU/E108 tuning, etc. The Turkish
> music section is not very detailed right now, and could certainly be
> improved (possibly by adding a new section, I'm not sure yet). But
> please do keep in mind that I'm driving blind here, so to say.

Basically, LilyPond makam.ly is a hack, but it may be fine if you are  
only interested in the typesetting and not having the MIDI files tuned  
exactly right. The difference might be considered slight, too.

The same applies to arabic.ly - I recall it uses E24. The Arabic  
microtonal symbols are from E24, but the tuning use in actual  
performance is different.

The Persian LilyPOnd file uses E60, I think.

It has to do with the limitations of LilyPond at the time it was made,  
encouraging multiples of E12. Graham Breed made extensions to any  
tuning he said, but that has not yet found its way into these files.

> Moreover, the patch we're discussing adds a whole chapter to the music
> Glossary, dedicated to "non-Western" languages (even though I now
> understand it could be more accurately named "non-CPP").

I have found that some can be confused over that Western folk music  
and Medieval music are non-Western in the sense you use the term. So  
gradually, over the years, I found CPP captures it more accurately.

Since the LilyPond project tries to some extend inform about musical  
usage, it might be best for it to stick to terms that best captures  
it, and then, in additional, indicate informal usage. That is the  
principle I see here.