On 09/21/2010 04:52 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > However, I was wrong in my assumption that something about the key signature > should determine which of the enharmonic equivalents should be used. > Instead, it appears that the neighboring notes should govern in tonal music. > In atonal music, it doesn't matter, except that it does in rapid passages. > There's virtually no guidance there that I can see for nontonal music.
Stone's guidance about the choice of accidentals is IMO something for composers to consider rather than Lilypond. From a Lilypond point of view, the issue should simply be: the composer can have the accidentals s/he chooses. > Transposition of exact quarter tones into appropriate notation is likely to > remain a *very* tricky problem. Why do you think so? If you're transposing in a regular fashion (i.e. by a certain number of semitones) you just transpose the underlying notes and preserve the arrows. If you want to transpose up/down by a quarter-tone, you just add an up/down-arrow to all the accidentals that don't already have one; all those that do, you bump them up/down to the next 'tonal' accidental. The only thing you have to take into account is that you almost certainly need to convert double-sharps and flats to naturals of the staff pitches above and below respectively. That requirement is one reason I've been trying to address Lilypond support for chromatic transposition recently. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
