Han säger NEJ till Pride

This post is about Swedish theo-politics and therefore in Swedish.

Jag skrev en kommentar till den här bloggposten, men den fastnade, tydligen för evigt, i granskningen. Uppenbarligen tyckte Skredsvik att det var bekvämare att få beröm av likasinnade än att hantera kritik. Så jag postar min kommentar här i stället:

Ja, Pride handlar i grund och botten om sexualitet. Sexualitet är något som är viktigt för alla, men de människor vars sexualitet är i linje med den gällande sexualmoralen tror att de inte är lika "sexfixerade" som de som står utanför den, därför att de aldrig behövt kämpa med att acceptera sig själva och kämpa mot samhällets fördomar för att få uttrycka och leva ut den sexualitet de har.

Pride finns till för att de människor som inte är heterosexuellt monogama ska få uppleva samma glädje och stolthet över att de är som de är som heterosexuellt monogama ständigt får. Pride vill bekräfta dessa människor på motsvarande sätt som vår kultur hela tiden bekräftar kärleken mellan man och kvinna.

Pride är inte till för att värna om och lyfta upp kärleken till Jesus, som du efterlyser, för den kärleken handlar inte om sexualitet utan om en självvald fixering. Pride behöver inte ens värna om eller lyfta fram kärleken mellan man och kvinna, för den kärleken har sin Pride-parad varenda dag på året.

Du får gärna för mig säga nej till Pride, och om du kommer med vettig kritik mot Pride så är det välkommet: konstruktiv kritik är alltid bra. Men den här bloggposten går längre än så. Du är extremt noggrann i dina formuleringar för att inte framstå som fördomsfull och oärlig, men lyckas inte helt.

Du skriver att stödet från "politiker, tidningar, kyrkoledare, tv-bolag osv" handlar om att "följ[a] efter i strömmen och [...] vänd[a] kappan efter vinden". Du försöker alltså få det att framstå som om alla dessa saknar både rationella skäl till att stödja Pride och den moraliska hållning som annars skulle få dem att ta avstånd från Pride. Det är ganska magstarkt att framhäva dig själv som klokare och mer moraliskt högtstående än samtliga dessa.

Du skriver att de som "har en annan syn på sexualitet än majoriteten blir ofta anklagade för att vara bakåtsträvande, hatiska, homofober, och allt möjligt" och framställer dig alltså som en förtryckt sexuell minoritet. Jag gissar att du är vad som idag kallas "cis-het-mono", alltså att du lever i samma kön som du är född i och praktiserar heterosexuell, monogamisk sexualitet. Detta innebär att du ingår i en majoritet, inte en minoritet. Att en stor del av denna majoritet idag har insett att det är fel att förtrycka HBTQ+-minoriteten innebär fortfarande inte att du plötsligt hamnat i en sexuell minoritet.

Du skriver att många menar att det "inte går att vara kritisk mot Pride och samtidigt värna om alla människors lika värde". OK, det är en åsikt som man kan ha, men den bygger inte på fakta: självklart kan man vara kritisk mot Pride och ändå vara engagerad i människors lika värde. "Kan det bli mer fel?" frågar du retoriskt. Ja, det kan bli mycket mer fel. T ex kan det bli fel på det sättet att du försöker göra Pride-rörelsen ansvarig för vad "många" säger om dem.

Du skriver att pga man har äktenskapssynen att "äktenskapet är för en man och en kvinna" så kan man i Sverige "få stå ut med hån, förtal, lögner och alla möjliga ogrundade anklagelser". Detta är djupt oärligt. Ingen överhuvudtaget förhindrar dig att ha en sådan äktenskapssyn, och ingenting drabbar dig på grund av att du har den eller ens pläderar för den. Det är när du försöker förhindra andra att frångå den äktenskapssynen som du riskerar att drabbas av, enligt min mening, ganska rimlig kritik.

Jag orkar inte bemöta allt ditt hat, jag väljer ut ett ord att påpeka: "översexualiserad". Ett klassiskt hatord som använts i många sammanhang, bl a mot svarta människor längre tillbaka i tiden. När det används mot HBTQ+-människor är det för att underkänna deras sexualitet, att säga att Görans kärlek till Lasse inte är en verklig, sund kärlek, utan att det handlar om att de är "översexualiserade" och på det viset börjat älska någon de inte borde älska.

När du skriver att "[a]ll kärlek är tydligen inte godkänd av Pride. Vissa människors kärlek är tydligen inte lika mycket värd som andras kärlek" är det ganska uppenbart att du applicerar dina egna värderingar på dem. Pride varken godkänner eller underkänner kärlek, och Pride värderar inte olika sorters kärlek mot varandra. Däremot läser man mellan raderna att enbart en sorts kärlek är godkänd i dina ögon, och att andra sorters kärlek är mindre värd. Är du beredd att bevisa att jag har fel, och skriva en bloggpost där du visar att du står för att alla former av kärlek är "godkända" och lika mycket värda?

Ordered numeric sequences

I wrote an answer on Stackoverflow, but I think the question is going to go away soon, so I'll post an edited version of my answer here.

The question was about how to find out whether digits in a sequence were in ascending (increasing) order or in descending (decreasing order). The sequence 1 2 3 is in increasing order, and so is 11 5, but this order is non-strict, i.e. the same digit may appear more than once if there are no other digits in between.

One can use mathematical comparison operators to check whether sequences of digits are in order:

foreach n {12345 54321 35214} {
    set ns [split $n {}]
    if {[::tcl::mathop::<= {*}$ns]} {
        puts "$n is in ascending order"
    } elseif {[::tcl::mathop::>= {*}$ns]} {
        puts "$n is in descending order"
    } else {
        puts "$n is neither in ascending or descending order"
    }
}

The command ::tcl::mathop::<= (which also implements the <= operator in expr) can take an arbitrary number of values, preferably numeric, and returns 1 if those values are in non-strict ascending order. It can be called directly on some values:

::tcl::mathop::<= 1 2 3 4 5
# -> 1

If the values are in a list it needs to be expanded first:

set a {1 2 3 4 5}
# -> 1 2 3 4 5
::tcl::mathop::<= {*}$a
# -> 1

If the values are packed in a string it needs to be split into a list and then expanded:

set a 12345
# -> 12345
::tcl::mathop::<= {*}[split $a {}]
# -> 1

The call to <= can be made a little less cumbersome by adding its namespace to the places where the interpreter looks for commands:

namespace path ::tcl::mathop
<= 1 2 3 4 5

Documentation: foreach, if, list, mathop, namespace, puts, set, split, {*}

Verbosity

I read a blog post today, A Short Story About Verbosity, about writing a tech book. The publisher had asked the writer to go for at least 600 pages. I was reminded of a joke I used to make back when I was teaching C and C++. I would plop down the 272-page The C Programming Language on the desk and say "This is an exhaustive description of C". Then I'd let the ~980-page "The C++ Programming Language" fall with a sickening thud and say "This is the bare minimum you need to understand C++". (Don't worry, I didn't leave them with that: there are shortcuts into C++, and I did my best to point them out.)

Many times you can't really avoid verbosity in a tech book. In the best case, this is because the subject is extensive. In the worst case, it's because the subject is humongous.

I still hope to be able to take my programming book from plans to reality one day. Whatever it becomes, it won't be thick. I'd be surprised if it's more than 300 pages. If I can't say what I want to say in less pages than that, maybe I shouldn't bother. That might mean that no publisher will be interested, but there are other ways.

De Gustibus

In the late 1990s I used Perl a lot, but then I discovered other languages that suited my tastes and needs better, particularily Tcl.

Today I was searching for something and Google served me a page from perlmonks where a question about Tcl/Tk vs Perl/Tk was asked. The OP commented on the "horrible ugliness" of Tcl, and someone posted a Perl/Tk snippet as some kind of example of sensible Perl code:

#!/usr/bin/perl

use strict;
use Tk;

my $mw = MainWindow->new;

$mw->Button(-text => 'First Button',
            -command => sub { print "You hit the First Button.\n" }
            )->pack;

$mw->Button(-text => 'Second Button',
            -command => \&second_sub,
            )->pack;

$mw->Button(-text => 'QUIT',
            -command => \&exit,
            )->pack;

MainLoop;

sub second_sub
{
    print "The Second Button invokes a Named Subroutine.\n";
    return;
}

For comparison, here's the equivalent Tcl code:

pack [button .b1 -text "First Button" \
    -command { puts "You hit the First Button" }]
pack [button .b2 -text "Second Button" -command secondProc]
pack [button .b3 -text "QUIT" -command exit]

proc secondProc {} {
    puts "The Second Button invokes a Named Subroutine"
}

It is a strange thing that some people find the almost sublime clarity, conciseness, and (yes, I would say:) beauty of Tcl "horribly ugly" while accepting the labyrinthine and bizarre syntax of Perl as usable.

Hallelujah -- Adventures in LilyPond 5: Lyrics and a twist

Finally, adding words

To complete the lead sheet, I add the lyrics for the song.  It's quite straightforward.  The only things I need to remember is to 1) set the input mode to \lyricmode to distinguish from note input, 2) to split up syllables, and 3) to add double underscores to extend syllables:

firstVerseWords = \lyricmode {
    I heard there was a sec -- ret chord
    that Da -- vid played and it pleased the Lord,
    but you don't real -- ly care for mu -- sic, do ya?
    It goes like this: the fourth, the fifth,
    the mi -- nor fall, the ma -- jor lift.
    The baff -- led king com -- po -- sing Hal -- le -- lu -- jah
}

    \lyricmode {
        O __ O __ A __
    }

So!  I'm done with the song (this is the point in time when I wrote the latest blog post: I've been blogging in parallell with working on the song).  Print it out and distribute it to the choir members, and...

Crash and burn

Remember that I used two different sets of notes as source material?  And that I selected a verse (the last one) that I didn't have any notes for?  Turns out that I made a couple of minor mistakes merging the notes, causing errors in rhythm that were possible to sing past with only brief hiccups during rehearsal.  I'm usually quite meticulous; three errors in transcription in a 39-measure song is quite a negative record for me.  Oops.

Worse, in one measure I thought I needed to have a 4-8-8-8-8-4-8-4. rhythm to the lyrics "even though it all went wrong, I'll".  And boy, did it all go wrong.  The piano stopped, the choir leader went WHAT.  I had tried to sing through the notes as I went along, but in this place I must have sung something else than what I put down as notes, because this is unsingable.  The choir leader quickly saw that a plain 4-8-4-8-4-8-4-8 rhythm worked and went through with the rehearsals, but I was mortified to say the least.

This project was my pride and joy: how could I have been so sloppy?  Well, I did spend a lot of time comparing notes, but I made the basic mistake of comparing with an early version of my own notes(!), so some early errors were preserved to the end.  I kept meaning to go back and compare with the notes my choir leader had given me to work from, but I never did: hence the small mistakes.

The big mistake was caused by trying to do something I hadn't really done before: joining new lyrics with existing music.  Cohen's lyrics are sometimes quirky when it comes to rhythm and I had already discovered that I needed to be flexible.  For most of the verse, I managed to get it right, but in this one measure, I overdid it and failed badly.

The moral of this would seem to be: "don't get cocky".  I was ambitious and enthusiastic, which are nice things to be but perhaps conducive to being speedy and careless.  I kept thinking I was working on something New and Improved, so I was less inclined than usual to look back to the prior art, and even prepared to do some experimenting on my own.  Ah well, lesson learned I hope.

"And even though it all went wrong, I'll stand before the Lord of Song, with nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah"...

Hallelujah -- Adventures in LilyPond 4: Notes

Adding music

I define three commands: \sopMusic, \altoMusic, and \bassMusic, to collect and transpose the notes for the different voices.  They are similar and very simple.

sopMusic = \transpose g a {
    \relative c' {
        \global

        \firstVerse
        \refrS

        \secondVerseS
        \refrS

        \thirdVerseS
        \refrS

        \bar "|."
    }
}

The \global command could alternatively be inserted before the \relative block; it doesn't really matter which.  Notes can be entered as absolute (no special command needed) or relative (inside a \relative block): in this case I choose to enter the notes relative to middle c (c').  At the end of the song, I insert a double bar line.

The commands \firstVerse, \refrS, \secondVerseS and so on are defined earlier and contain different parts of the notes (in this case the (unison) notes for the first verse, the soprano notes for the refrain, and the soprano notes for the second verse).  It isn't strictly necessary to break up the notes like this, but I find that it 1) becomes more readable and 2) makes it possible to reuse snippets (such as the notes for the first verse in all three voices)

Note collisions

When adding notes in more than one voice to a staff, sometimes notes from different voices need to be set in the same place because they are at the same pitch at the same time in the song.  LilyPond detects these collisions and either merges the notes together, or moves them apart if they can't be merged.  Example (the double backspace is shorthand for voice partition):

\relative c'' <<
    { a2. b4 a1 }
    \\
    { a2. g4 a1 }
>>


The first A notes can be merged, the B and G notes don't collide, and the final A notes collide but can't be merged, so they are moved apart:

To me the second measure looks very confusing.  One solution is to replace one of the colliding notes with a spacer rest:

\relative c'' <<
    { a2. b4 s1 }
    \\
    { a2. g4 a1 }
>>

This works, but now the notes for the first voice have been tampered with and information is lost.  Lyrics can't be connected to the voice, and the voice can't be moved to its own staff.

Another solution is to tell LilyPond to ignore collisions and just engrave the notes on top of each other:

\relative c'' <<
    \override NoteColumn #'ignore-collision = ##t
    { a2. b4 a1 }
    \\
    { a2. g4 a1 }
>>

This creates new problems, such as turning the first note into some kind of double-dotted monstrosity:

The cleanest and best solution is to switch off collision detection just for that specific note:

\relative c'' <<
    { a2. b4
      \once \override NoteColumn #'ignore-collision = ##t
      a1 }
    \\
    { a2. g4 a1 }
>>

This problem occurs in a few places in the ``Hallelujah'' notes, for instance in the first verse.  I define a command for switching collision detection off temporarily, partly to make it less intrusive, and partly because I can then invoke the same command in the other relevant places:

ignore = \once \override NoteColumn #'ignore-collision = ##t

firstVerse = {
    \partial 8 d8 |
    d4 d8 d4 d8 e8 e e4. d8   | d4 d8 d d d e4 e8 e4 e8   |
    e4 e8 e4 e8 e4 d8 d4 c8   | d8 \ignore d1 r4 d8       |
    d4 d8 d4 d8 e4 e8 fis4 d8 | g8 g8 g4. g8 g8 g8 a4. a8 |
    a4 a8 a4 a8 b4 b b8 a     | a4. g2
}

By the way, LilyPond doesn't care that much about whitespace and aligning bar checks, it's just me being pedantic.  Yes, bar checks.  LilyPond calculates the extent of measures and puts in bar lines by itself without needing any specification in the source.  However, by inserting bar checks (|) where I think a measure should end the notes become more readable (I can count bars to get to a specific place in the source) and I will get a warning from LilyPond if my bar placing doesn't add up correctly (which either means I just counted wrong or, worse, that I've messed up a duration somewhere).

Also note the fis in the next measure.  LilyPond by default uses the Dutch language convention for naming accidentals: -is for sharps and -es for flats.  You can choose between twelve different languages with different note/accidentals naming standards, but I've always used the default one.  For one thing, if I used Swedish naming, the B notes would be H notes, and that's just plain wrong.  (Unless you're J. S. Bach and you want to spell your name in chords.)    


The DRY principle

In programming, the DRY principle ("Don't Repeat Yourself") is a powerful tool used to avoid contradictions.  The principle asserts that every piece of knowledge must have a single representation.  Applying this to LilyPond, this means it's good practice to detect duplicate ranges of notes and bring them together into a single command, which is then invoked in every place where the duplicate notes are used.  For example, both the soprano and the alto voices use the same notes for the first half of their respective second verses.  Instead of having the same notes in both the definitions of \secondVerseS and \secondVerseA, I use the following:

secondVerseFirstHalfSA = {
    r4. d'8 |
    d4 d4. d8 e4 e8 e4 d8  | d4 d8 d4 d8 e4 e8 e4 e8 |
    e4 e8 e4 e8 e4 d8 d c4 | d8 \ignore d1 r4 d8     |
}

secondVerseS = {
    \secondVerseFirstHalfSA
    % ...
}

secondVerseA = {
    \secondVerseFirstHalfSA
    % ... 
}

This means that whatever happens, this particular piece of music will be consistent.  If one voice is correct, the other will also be correct.

Now, in the soprano voice, the second halves of the second and third verses are almost identical: only half a measure in the middle differs.  Maybe this shouldn't bother me, but it does, so by Knuth I will solve it.  I can't use a command to define the relevant notes, but I can use a substitution function:

secondAndThirdVerseSecondHalfS =
#(define-music-function
     (parser location notes)
     (ly:music?)
   #{
    d4 d8 d d d e4 e8 fis4. | g4 g8 g4 g8 #notes |
    a4 a8 a4 a8 b4 b b8 a   | a4. g2
   #})

This function contains the duplicate notes, with a placeholder (#notes) for the differing notes.  It can be used like this:

secondVerseS = {
    \secondVerseFirstHalfSA
    \secondAndThirdVerseSecondHalfS { g8 g a a4 a16 a }
}

Edit: Nnnope.  In the end I had to make some more changes to the second half of the third verse (more about this in part 5), so the secondAndThirdVerseSecondHalfS function isn't viable any more.  The concept is still sound, though.

To be concluded.

Hallelujah -- Adventures in LilyPond 3: Chords

The definition of global

By convention, LilyPond source files define the command \global, which is then used to insert, well, globally relevant constants at the appropriate places.  In practice, this is typically the key and time signature.  Because I made the basic mistake of writing the music in the key of G, I'll specify G major and rely on the \transpose command to correct it later.

global = {
    \key g \major
    \time 12/8
}

The \global command is then called in each of the \sopMusic, \altoMusic, and \bassMusic definitions.

LilyPond version

Another convention is to add the LilyPond version statement at the top of the source file.  In fact, LilyPond will warn you if you don't.  In theory, this will protect your work if you run a very old source file through the LilyPond compiler, by reverting to old interpretations if the current ones have changed since then.  This is in contrast to say, POV-Ray, where I'm told old source files simply stop working with newer versions of the program.

\version "2.16.2"

I've never had any version problems with LilyPond, but then I always do add the version statement (mostly because I hate warnings).

The chords

With those things out of the way, I could start writing the source for the lead sheet.  Chords first, the backbone of the song.

verseChords = \chordmode {
    g2. e:m g e:m
    c2. d g d
    g2. c4. d e2.:m c4. d
    d2. b:7 e:m e:m
}

refrChords = \chordmode {
    c2. c e:m e:m
    c2. c g d g
}

The command \chordmode tells LilyPond not to try to read the following as notes, which is the default input format, but as chords.  Each of the verses use the same chord sequence, as do the refrains, but I don't have to repeat the chords for each verse/refrain.  By the magic of LilyPond definitions I can define two commands that contain verse chords and refrain chords, and later use the commands three times each.  I believe it's hard to do that in a WYSIWYG music editor.

Most of the chords have a half-measure (6 eights) duration, or the equivalent of a dotted half-note (written as 2. after the chord name).  In a couple of cases the cords have a quarter-measure (3 eights) duration, written as 4. (a dotted quarternote), and in some places a chord lasts for a full measure.  I could have written that as chordname1., but instead I doubled the chords (e.g. e:m e:m).  There is a special syntax for repeating chords, e:m q, which I, for no good reason, don't use here.  I might in the future (it's an old syntax which was gone for a couple of versions and then reintroduced).

So, let's put the chord definitions together and transpose them to A:

theChords = \transpose g a {
    \set chordChanges = ##t

    \chordmode { s8 }
    \verseChords
    \refrChords

    \chordmode { d2. }
    \verseChords
    \refrChords

    \chordmode { d2. }
    \verseChords
    \refrChords
}

Note that I have some additional chords here: a spacer (invisible) chord for the pickup measure in the beginning of the song, and a half-measure D chord joining each refrain to the following verse.  Also, by setting the chordChanges property to true (##t), I instruct LilyPond to leave out chord names except where they change or at the beginning of a new line.  This is very handy and should be the default if you ask me.

Once \theChords is defined, all the chords for the song are put together in a neat package, ready to be dropped into the score.  They are also transposed from G major to A without any brainwork on my part (even I could go from G to A, but LilyPond will happily do transpositions that are much harder).

The lyrics mention four (I, IV, V, vi) of the five chords used as they occur in the song (the fifth one being a III⁷ chord that is used only once in each verse):

"It [I]goes like this: the [IV]fourth, the [V]fifth, the [vi]minor fall, the [IV]major [V]lift"

One of us, Mr Cohen.  One of us.

To be continued.