Re: [tablatures] Baroque lute tablature

[Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@xxxxxxx>]

On 11/23/09 10:48 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <t.daniels@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> Carl Sorensen wrote Sunday, November 22, 2009 3:08 PM
> 
>> On 11/22/09 3:57 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <t.daniels@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>   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.

Ahh, you're correct, having thought about it more than me.

> 
>>>   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.
> 

Actually, if it's done correctly, it will likely be a mix of C++ and scheme..
The standard way to do it is to have the C++ handle the events, then call a
scheme routine to actually create the output.


>>> 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 ??
> 

Of course they can.  It's no problem to save them for later.  And since it's
your project, you can work on it in any order you want.

If it were my project, I'd probably try to get decorations, double pluck
indication, and simultaneous pluck indication in Phase I.

I'd probably also do Italian style in phase I.

I'd leave Laissez vibrer, end of section, end of piece, and improved glyphs
for phase III.

But that's just personal preference.  And it reflects the way I chose to
work on fret diagrams.  I got every feature I could think of implemented in
markup fret diagrams before I put them in the FretBoards context.

I think your plan is marvelous.

Thanks,

Carl




> Trevor
> 
> 
> 
>