Re: Is "note value" unambiguous?

[Mark Knoop]

At 15:45 on 11 Jan 2025, Dan Eble wrote:
> Saul Tobin wrote at
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2024-12/msg00048.html,

>> In English, I would also use the term "note value"
>> ...
>> to describe something like "dotted quarter."

> I have been surfing the web reading about duration and I
> find sources pushing me in different directions about
> whether "note value" refers strictly to a power-of-two
> fraction of a whole note or also includes a number of
> dots. For example, the notes { c4 c4. } have different
> durations; do they also have different note values?

> I can't tell whether people disagree about the meaning of
> the term or it's just being misused in some cases.

I think the "meaning" of the term is contextual and usually obvious. In this 
case, outside of a technical discussion about engraving software, yes, 
obviously they have different note values.

When we're talking about real music, a "note" would perhaps most obviously be a 
single attack-sustain-release.

Maybe the distinction you are after could be found by using the term "notehead 
value"?

I think it's fairly clear then that { c4 } and { c4. } have the same notehead 
value and different note values. And { c4~ 4 } and { c2 } have different 
notehead values and the same note value.

--
Mark Knoop