Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Avner Dorman

Add pitch classes as text above notes?

Recommended Posts

Is there an easy way to add the pitch class as text above each note of the score? For example, add a '0' above any 'c' in a score?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
((eb4 num3 f4 num5 gb4 num8 a4 num9 c4 num0)
 (bb4 num11 c4 num0 eb4 num3 e4 num4 f4 num5))

List of all attributes you find in the '4th Element - Attributes' document.

Of course you can create your own attributes (articulations) as well, with ADD-TEXT-ATTRIBUTES function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks so much!!! This is great!

 

I wrote the following functions that automatically add the pitch class as text above each note. This is really useful for me when teaching set theory. I am sharing them in case anyone else needs something like this ūüôā

 

Also, I'd be curious to know how the text font might be modified. 

;; convert pitch-classes to nums
(defun pc-to-num (pitches)
  (substitute-map '(num0 num1 num2 num3 num4 num5 num6 num7 num8 num9 num10 num11) '(0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11) (modus (pitch-to-integer pitches))))

;; interweave two lists
(defun interweave (list1 list2)
  (if (null list1)
    list2 
    (cons (car list1) (interweave list2 (cdr list1)))))

;; add pcs as a num to each pitch
(defun show-pcs (pitches) (interweave pitches (pc-to-num pitches)))

;; test
(setf pitches '(c4 bb4 f4 eb4 fs4 d4 g4 b4 e4 a4 cs4 gs4))
(show-pcs pitches)

 

Pitches with PCS.pdf

Pitches.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Topics

    • By torstenanders
      Revising some older code of my I noticed that the function length-divide changed its behaviour somewhat and became more likely to cause an error.
       
      In a previous version, where the arguments count and divide where given separately, it was possible to set the count to some very high number, say, 1000, simply to mean that all notes the function can split (depending on its other arguments) will be split. 
       
      Meanwhile, the function have been revised to introduce control over intervals (thank you ūüôā), but since then it seems it is not possible anymore to set an arbitrarily high count value anymore. For example, the following code now results in an error. I would prefer the previous behaviour, if only because it is more forgiving and stable.
       
      (length-divide '(1000 2) '(q ab3 num1+leg c4 leg e ab3 leg g3 leg ab3 num1+leg c4 leg)) Error: The value ab3 is not of the expected type sequence.  
      In case it helps: my debugger tells me the functions gen-repeat and then maybe-section are called (perhaps within a nested function of length-divide* ?) with an argument sequence bound to ab3 (i.e. a plain pitch), and a call (length ab3) then causes this error. 
       
      Thank you!
       
      Best,
      Torsten
    • By Stoney
      I just discovered that (from the doc for integer-to-pitch)
      (integer-to-pitch '((-2 -1) 0 (1 2))) => (bb3b3 c4 cs4d4) but
      (integer-to-pitch '((-2 -1) (0 2) (1 2))) => ((bb3 b3) (c4 d4) (cs4 d4))  
      Unless at least one element is not a sublist, it fails to make chords. This seems inconsistent, and probably a bug.
      This is in Opusmodus Version 1.3.24962
    • By torstenanders
      The function LENGTH-DIVIDE and friends are a useful device for introducing some rhythmic variation to some material. However, when the processed sequence is a full OMN expression (see example below), then the added notes cause all other parameters to shift forward (additional parameters are added at the end by looping). For introducing only a slight variation to some existing material (e.g., motif) these functions are therefore not so useful, because this shift of all parameters to basically "fill" the new added notes with pitches etc. greatly change the varied material for a listener.
      (length-divide 1 2 '(q f3 leg+m1 q ab3 leg e c4 leg bb3 leg ab3 leg g3))  
      Basically, this is the opposite situation of the situation addressed by swallowing. Swallowing (e.g., with GEN-SWALLOW and the swallow argument of many other functions) avoids the shift of parameters like pitch etc. that would result from removing notes and turning them into rests. For addressing the situation above properly we would need something like the opposite of swallowing, some way to fill in parameters like pitch etc. for new notes to avoid shifting existing notes. I hope my explanation makes sense and you can see why something like the opposite of swallowing would be useful for functions that add notes to some input material.
       
      Now, the tricky question is of course, what parameters (pitch etc.) should be added in such cases. Musically useful and common in the classical literature would be, e.g., repeating the parameters (pitch etc.) of the predecessor note (though that might be a bit too simplistic and annoying at times) or somehow interpolating some pitch gap between the previous and next note with a little scale or arpeggio and only repeating the other parameters like articulations (resulting in some variation that is likely most similar to the input material, so it would be good to have that as an option).  If the pitch interval between the two original notes is too small to add some pitch in between for the new now (or as an option in general for variety), it would also be good  to add some ornamentation (e.g., using PITCH-ORNAMENT), but for a close similarity between the original material and the variation it would be best as an option to apply such ornamentation only to the newly added notes, not all notes. Of course, other options could also be useful for variations that vary the input material a bit more strongly, e.g., some random pitch for the new notes within certain interval bounds.
       
      Does some function that kind of is the opposite of GEN-SWALLOW in that it adds parameters like pitches for subdivided rhythmic values (to avoid the shifting) sound like a good idea?
       
      The idea with the interpolation of gaps could be implemented by turning the original duration values and pitches into some envelope and then reading that envelope with the new rhythmic values. So, that is rather strait forward. However, that would not allow for some ornamentation, because such algorithm would not recognise which notes are new that should be ornamented.
       
      Any other idea perhaps? Thanks! 
×
×
  • Create New...