Re: {<g bf> <gqs bqf>} not sounding right.

[Pierre-Luc Gauthier]

Thanks for all your answers.

Yes I understand that a Pitch bend event (like aftertouch, channel
pressure, etc) is a channel thing.

I rather thought about Lilypond being able to "look ahead|behind" like
(I imagine is working) the "Melody_Engraver" to harmonise (no pun
intended) the pitch shift up or down decision.

\language "english"

In my use case <gqs bqf> :
- the gqs is the note g pitched upward.
- the bqf is the note b pitched downward.

To homogenise the output, I think the MIDI output should transform :
<gqs bqf> → <atqf bqf>
or equivalently
<gqs bqf> → <gqs atqs>

My workaround for now is to \tag #`midiOnly.

\version "2.25.6"

\language "english"

\score {
  {
    <g' bf' d''> <gqs' atqs' dqs''>
    <g' bf' d''> <atqf' bqf' etqf''>
    <g' bf' d''> <gqs' bqf' dqs''> % < this not ok
  }
  \layout {}
  \midi {}
}


Le ven. 19 janv. 2024, à 11 h 50, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> a écrit :
>
> Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> writes:
>
> >> I have a branch (from a few years ago) where I changed LilyPond's MIDI
> >> microtonality from using Pitch Bends (which is a bad idea when using
> >> chords) to using MIDI 1.0 tuning information. This works fine IIRC as
> >> long as you don't construct chords containing really close notes
> >> (e.g. c and c+5 cents).
> >
> > Sounds great.  Given that MIDI 2.0 is still rather new it probably
> > makes sense to go this route.
>
> Well, to put LilyPond into a bit more of a perspective, we are at GM1
> level.  Supporting GM2 would mean fast-forwarding all the way into the
> distant year 1999 (for GM2 v1.2a, even to 2007).
>
> I actually use MIDI devices regularly that don't do GM2.
>
> MIDI 2.0, in contrast, is from 2020.  It would be overoptimistic to
> expect the average established musician to work with devices developed
> as recent as that.  And it's not unreasonable to assume that many of
> those interested in using the kind of workflow LilyPond offers would
> pass as "old-school" and have a leaning towards old-school devices,
> regardless of what biological age their ID might pronounce.
>
> So in my book, offering support for GM2 _and_ other instrument/patch
> schemes beyond GM1 would be more of a priority over going MIDI 2.0.
>
> --
> David Kastrup



-- 
Pierre-Luc Gauthier