On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 07:46, Matthias Neeracher wrote: > On Oct 28, 2004, at 12:27 AM, David Bobroff wrote: > > > I'm not a developer, but this looks right to me. In your example you > > have a chord which is a diminished step above the tonic of the key. > > When you transpose this down one whole step it remains the same > > relative > > to the key. > > Thanks for explaining this logic. My music theory is not overly sound, > so I'm perfectly willing to accept that there is a sound theoretical > justification for this. Nevertheless, I'd still argue that on a > practical level, "E" might be preferable here.
It may indeed be more convenient to read 'e' than 'fes', but LilyPond is simply maintaining an internal consistency. > > > f ges > > > > es fes > > > > If you were to do: > > > > \transpose f' dis' > > > > You would likely get 'e' instead of 'fes' and this would be consistent > > with the above logic. > > Sure, but Jazz pianists tend to take a dim view of singers showing up > with a lead sheet transposed into D sharp major :-) > I'm sure they do, and I'm certainly not suggesting that you do this. > However, I could (and probably will) transpose the song into D or E > instead. > > > Likewise, if you had written a fis chord, it would have come out as an > > e > > chord after your transposition. > > Yes, but it seems somewhat counterintuitive that in order to avoid > "weird" chord names in chords with flats, I have to transpose into a > key with sharps, and vice versa. > It could be argued that a ges chord in f major is already a "weird" chord for the key. Yes, I do understand that jazz uses a lot of altered chords. As a further example, I recently did a transposition of an orchestral part. It was written in bass clef and transposing, sounding a whole step lower than written. This is a somewhat archaic German/Austrian practice. The part needed to be written a step lower. I did it using LilyPond. I entered the part as written and then used \transpose. At one point there was a 'fes' in the original. In the transposition it came out as 'ees'. In a hand-written copy of the transposed part this had been rendered as 'd'. I eventually found my copy of an engraved transposed part and it was rendered as 'ees' --- the same as LilyPond. The developers of LilyPond strive to recreate the look of European engraving of the 19th century. This pre-dates jazz notation. To deal with things like your 'ges' chord in 'f' becoming a 'fes' chord in 'es', you will probably have to call it 'fis' in your input file to get what you want (i.e. 'e' in 'es'). I see this not as a shortcoming of LilyPond, but a difference between the two practices. -David _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
