On 5/5/15 11:10 PM, "Keith OHara" <k-ohara5...@oco.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 May 2015 23:58:12 -0700, Valentin Villenave
><valen...@villenave.net> wrote:
>
>> Speaking as someone who regularly gives LilyPond initiation seminars
>> for adults and children, the hardest part is explaining to them why
>> \relative mode is not on by default.
>
>What if they didn't have to type all those 's in absolute mode ?
>You might not need to explain relative mode at all.
>
>It was hard for me to remember when in \relative I needed g' to get a G5
>but later in a very similar circumstance the same pitch is spelled g
>
> \relative {r2 c'4 c | g' g a a | g2 f4 f | e4 e d d | c2 g'4 g
> | f4 f e e | e4 d g g | f4 f e e | e4 d c c
> | g' g a a | g2 f4 f | e4 e d d | c2 r }
>
> \absolute c' {r2 c4 c | g g a a | g2 f4 f | e4 e d d | c2 g4 g
> | f4 f e e | e4 d g g | f4 f e e | e4 d c c
> | g g a a | g2 f4 f | e4 e d d | c2 r }
>
>
>If the melody crosses above and below C
>
> \relative {c''4 c e8 c g4 | g8 g16 g g8 g e'4 c
> | c4 c e8 c g4 | g8 g16 g g8 g c2
> | c8 c c e g e c4 | g8 g' g, g' e4 c
> | c8 c c e g e c4 | g8 g' g, g' c,2 }
>
>then absolute mode needs a lot of octave marks, but all the pitches that
>sound low get consistently a low octave mark
>
> \absolute c'' {c4 c e8 c g,4 | g,8 g,16 g, g,8 g, e4 c
> | c4 c e8 c g,4 | g,8 g,16 g, g,8 g, c2
> | c8 c c e g e c4 | g,8 g g, g e4 c
> | c8 c c e g e c4 | g,8 g g, g c2 }
I've been lurking on this discussion, because I didn't have strong
feelings one way or another. And now I think I finally understand the
issue.
In thinking about writing docs, we have absolute mode and relative mode.
In absolute mode, we explicitly specify the intended octave of the pitch.
In relative mode, the octave of the pitch is determined by the
relationship with the previously interpreted (or parsed, I'm not exactly
sure) note.
The new function isn't absolute mode, because we don't specify the octave
of the pitch. Instead, it's relative mode, but relative to a fixed pitch.
So I think it shouldn't be called absolute, but rather something like
\relative-fixed. If we wanted to be more explicit, we might consider
changing \relative to \relative-sequential, defining this new function as
\relative-fixed, and still keeping absolute as a mode if we aren't using
one of the relative modes.
In the context of the music I engrave, I think that \relative-fixed is
much better than \relative(-sequential). I also think that it would
resolve most of the cut and paste issues that Kieren has identified,
because the music can easily be pasted anywhere with the only requirement
being that the fixed baseline pitch must be written.
So, I think I'm in favor of the proposal, but with a name change away from
\absolute.
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
