Re: [tablatures] Baroque lute tablature

["Trevor Daniels" <t.daniels@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Carl Sorensen wrote Sunday, November 22, 2009 3:08 PM

> On 11/22/09 3:57 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <t.daniels@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> > I see the implementation proceeding in three phases:
> >
> > Phase I: Implement lute tab output from notemode input with basic
> > facilities
> >
> > This will require resolving (at least!) these issues:
> >
> >   How should bass course tunings be specified?
>
> There are two options I can think of:
>
> 1.  Add a bassTunings property that lists the bass courses
> 2.  Add the bass course tunings to stringTunings, and add a new 
> property
> that indicates the number of bass courses.
>
> I think I prefer option 1.  Since we need to add a property 
> anyway, it might
> as well be the bass course tunings, which is the information we 
> realy want
> to have answered.

I do too.  It means the existing tab-related code would
not be affected.

> >   Baroque lute tab context definitions
> >   Use markup above/below tab or some other approach?
>
> I think that the quickest thing to do would be to use markups.
>
> But I think the best thing to do is to create some new engravers. 
> I haven't
> thought carefully about the names, but they'd be something like
> lute_notehead_engraver, lute_stem_engraver, and 
> lute_bass_engraver.  Then
> we'd have the proper logical entries.

The problem with this is that quite a lot of the
existing tab-related code for noteheads would be
duplicated in the new engraver.  The only real change
is to use letters rather than numbers.  But new
lute-stem-engraver and lute-bass-engraver sound sensible.

> >   How much can be done in Scheme?
>
> All *can* be done in Scheme, but I don't think it all should.  New 
> engravers
> are in C++.

OK, I can cope with that.  Actually I'm probably happier
in C++ than Scheme, although I have little real experience
with neither.  I shall need to get more familiarity with
ubuntu and compiling though.  This might slow things up
a bit.

> > Phase III: Tidy up and implement additional features
> >
> > Some to consider:
> >
> >   Decorations
> >   Laissez vibrer indication with correct end point
> >   Improved glyphs
> >   End of section and end of piece indications
> >   Double pluck indication (diagonal line between two frets)
> >   Simultaneous pluck indication (vertical line with decoration)
> >   Italian style
>
> You may want this to be part of Phase I, as it will help govern 
> the context
> and grob properties desired.

I left these until later as they all raise new
problems and I didn't want to hold up I and II
because of that.  Surely any properties they require
can be added when we come to code them, can't they ??

Trevor