On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 18:26, s.abeccara wrote: > yes, I downloaded the entire archive, but the answer has been far from > helpful.
just to put the record straight, this was something that bothered me a little bit when i first started using lilypond. but after the explanations offered in the last discussions, i understand why lilypond uses this approach and agree with it. it makes more sense to me. especially if you look at the arguments rune and david posted this afternoon. > just putting a symbol telling Lilypond the "f" has to be scaled down > half a tone, like in normal, human music. if you really want this approach, you could try abc. in abc if you put a piece in a key-signature, then you have to explicitly state the accidentals. http://www.gre.ac.uk/~c.walshaw/abc/ i do however think that lilypond is way more powerful, and produces better looking music. this is my personal opinion. > |i think the approach han-wen > | et al have chosen for writing the notes of a piece of music follow all > | musical rules in the book. > > which book? this is an idiom meaning that which is generally seen as correct. if i may quote rune: "Lilypond DOES follow common notational behaviour." this is what i meant by "all the rules in the book". :) i am also sure that if you look at any book or tractate on musical theory, then you will see that a key signature only changes what is printed. a written f in our much maltreated g major is an f sharp. therefore it makes sense [to me, and to many others, i assume] to explicitly state it is an f sharp. > if i'm reading a piece in g major, then i > | will read any note in the bottom space of the treble staff as an > | f-sharp, not as an f. so i write "fis" for this note... :o) > > i don't agree. it is really not an f sharp, it is a natural f in the > key of G, so nothing has to be added to it. if you are singing a piece > and you aren't told which key it is in (unless you have an absolute > ear) you will sing "sharp" notes completely automatically, like > natural ones. :o) the key of g tells us that this note is an f-sharp, even if it is the "natural" f in this context (from a certain point of view. it makes a large difference on the trombone -- f is played in 1st position, f# in 5th or 3rd, depending on the octave). my understanding is that a key signature just tells us, starting from a given note, which notes are to be augmented from their natural state to make the tone-tone-semitone-tone-tone-semitone pattern for a major scale (or any other patterns for the other scales). in this case, i think that the lilypond approach is the syntactically more correct approach. > for people really playing and singing music, and not simply > typesetting it, this is ridiculous. these are two different kettles of fish. players and singers will never (almost never) see your lilypond code used to typeset a piece of music for them. they couldn't care less if you have to write fis or f, they just sing or play whats on the sheet of music. lilypond is a tool for typesetting music, which is the precursor to playing or singing it. i recently typeset a march for our concert band. we have instruments in F, E-flat, B-flat, C and one crazy guy who plays a D trumpet, but cannot transpose. using lilypond, i could write all parts of the march for c instruments and just transpose the parts to the correct keys for the relative instruments. including a part for the d-trumpet which was a matter of changing one line of code... as rune and david stated earlier today, this would be difficult, if not impossible, to implement if lilypond were to automatically assume an f in g major is really an f-sharp. most of this is my personal opinion. feel free to flame me if you wish, but i think that the approach lilypond uses is the most logical way to typesetting music without using a mouse. greetings, simon. -- Don't be irreplaceable, if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted. _______________________________________________ Lilypond-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
