Search the Community

The functions omn and make-omn are powerful tools to construct and deconstruct scores of multiple parameters. However, beyond the parameter keywords that are well-documented (:length, :pitch, :velocity, and :articulation) it seems there are other keywords that represent important parameters of the score that should not be omitted (e.g., when we are transforming scores, and do not want to loose important characteristics). Here is an example. When the following melodic line is deconstructed, then beyond the well-documented parameter keywords it also shows the parameters :duration and :leg. If the :leg parameter would be omitted in the construction of the (possibly transformed) score, then all legato information would be stripped from the original music. (omn nil '((-3h fs4 pp leg g4 leg) (h a4) (-q cs5 mp< ord) (q c5 f stacc -) (-5h - c5 pp leg e5 < leg f5 < leg) (h gs4 pp))) (:length ((-1/6 1/6 1/6) (1/2) (-1/4 1/4) (1/4 -1/4) (-1/10 -1/10 1/10 1/10 1/10) (1/2)) :pitch ((fs4 g4) (a4) (cs5) (c5) (c5 e5 f5) (gs4)) :velocity ((pp pp) (pp) (mp<) (f) (pp < <) (pp)) :duration ((1/6 1/6) (1/2) (1/4) (1/4) (1/10 1/10 1/10) (1/2)) :articulation ((- -) (-) (ord) (stacc) (- - -) (-)) :leg ((2) (-) (-) (-) (3) (-))) Now, my questions are as follows. (1) Do there exist more than the two additional parameters :duration and :leg shown above? For example, have other special articulations their own OMN keywords? (2) Where are all these parameters documented? (3) Are these parameters stable, or will they possibly change in future? Janusz, in your process-omn function we recently discussed, you used (omn-plist :attribute <my-sequence>) instead of (omn :articulation <my-sequence>). Should omn-plist perhaps be used instead for more stable transformation functions when deconstructing scores? If so, it would be helpful to have that function also documented :) Thanks a lot! Best, Torsten