[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt)
From: |
Eyolf Østrem |
Subject: |
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt) |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:45:05 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13cvs-muttng (2007-01-26) |
On 10.09.2007 (05:22), Graham Percival wrote:
> Rune Zedeler wrote:
> >And in all cases, it is way too early. The user has not even learned what
> >the "4" in "c4" means.
> Tutorial. If a user hasn't read the LM, they're on their own and I have
> *no* sympathy for them.
That's definitely the right approach. The *Documentation* should be in
a reference form, arranged according to contents. This, IMHO, relates
also to the question: bigger or smaller sections/subsections: it is
rarely the case that one has a very specific question which can be
answered by looking at a small subsection. My own usage is to open the
pdf, search through the whole document for some word I expect to be
relevant, and hopefully find the answer, either in some specific
place, or from what I can piece together. I hardly ever use the ToC.
For the same reason, I hardly ever use the one-page-per-subsection
version of the doc.
> ... my general concern with "it isn't musical content, only with how it is
> displayed" is that most musicians don't make that distinction. Most
> people _would_ say that ottava changes pitches.
This is also the right way to go, I think. Whether or not something
CHANGES the pitch, it still has to do with representing pitches, and I
have no problem at all with a main heading "Pitches", which then, if
necessary, can be subdivided into "Entering pitches" and "modifying
the display" or something.
> >I don't think that beams belong in this section - they belong together
> >with phrasing slurs.
> IMO, beaming is intricately bound up in meter. I could be convinced
> otherwise, though. Anybody else have opinions about this?
> >> o 8.7 Ancient notation
> >Hmm, not really instrument specific.
> "Specific-purpose notation" ?
> "Notation for limited use" ?
Why not a section of its own?
> >> o 9.3 Vocal music
> >If we consider the human voice an instrument, then this is very
> >instrument specific. Move it to that section.
> That's where it used to be, but singers complained. :)
And rightly so... :-) If it should go anywhere else, it could perhaps
be together with "Text", since that is (mainly) what distinguishes it
from "normal" music.
Eyolf
--
David Brinkley: The daily astrological charts are precisely where, in my
judgment, they belong, and that is on the comic page.
George Will: I don't think astrology belongs even on the comic pages.
The comics are making no truth claim.
Brinkley: Where would you put it?
Will: I wouldn't put it in the newspaper. I think it's transparent rubbish.
It's a reflection of an idea that we expelled from Western thought in the
sixteenth century, that we are in the center of a caring universe. We are
not the center of the universe, and it doesn't care. The star's alignment
at the time of our birth -- that is absolute rubbish. It is not funny to
have it intruded among people who have nuclear weapons.
Sam Donaldson: This isn't something new. Governor Ronald Reagan was sworn
in just after midnight in his first term in Sacramento because the stars
said it was a propitious time.
Will: They [horoscopes] are utter crashing banalities. They could apply to
anyone and anything.
Brinkley: When is the exact moment [of birth]? I don't think the nurse is
standing there with a stopwatch and a notepad.
Donaldson: If we're making decisions based on the stars -- that's a cockamamie
thing. People want to know.
-- "This Week" with David Brinkley, ABC Television, Sunday, May 8, 1988,
excerpts from a discussion on Astrology and Reagan
Re: GDP: rearrangement, Till Rettig, 2007/09/11
Re: GDP: rearrangement (third attempt), Tim Litwiller, 2007/09/09