> On Jan 26, 2016, at 8:18 AM, Sharon Rosner <cico...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Of all alternative systems discussed on this thread, the only one which is > really appropriate for transposition is the "Lines a Whole Step Apart" > system (http://musicnotation.org/systems/gallery/). There it is just a > matter of moving the clef or switching the clef. > > The rest of them use either special note shapes for sharps/flats > ("Clairnote", "Simplified notation"), which is not any better for > transposition, or special note shapes for the in-between notes ("Twinline > Notation"). > > The OP's system uses Four vertical positions between staff lines (including > on-the-line). How do you transpose that by half a step?
I see what you’re saying. Seems to me that transposing on the fly is generally not an easy thing to do in any case, without a lot of practice. Transposing by an octave is actually really easy in Clairnote. Transposing by a major 3rd (or minor 6th) would be as easy as transposing by a semitone in a “Lines a Whole Step Apart” system, since the lines are that far apart. Transposing by a whole step would be next easiest, but... Ultimately, I think you would learn to read and play by intervals and do it that way. Making it easier to read by intervals is a strength of these systems. > In contrast, in traditional notation you can easily transpose by moving or > changing the clef and changing the key signature. Well, there’s a lot of work that goes into getting to the point where this is easy. > Admittedly this is harder > today with the modern accidental display practice (displayed once per bar), > but 300 years ago musicians were able to do this on sight by imagining an > alternative clef and key signature. See also the practice of Chiavette or > chiavi transportate - transposition clefs. Hmmm… Seems like this primarily works for music without accidentals. Does it really work when you have a lot of accidentals? Say a note that was a natural in the first key is a sharp in the new key… in the music that note appears altered by a sharp sign… you have to read that sharp sign as if it were a double sharp sign. Or, say a note was a sharp in the first key, but is a natural in the second key… and that note appears in the music altered by a natural sign… you have to read that natural sign as a flat sign. Or am I missing something? -Paul P.S. To musicus, apologies that this conversation has expanded beyond your proposal… It seems I have a lot to say on this topic. I’ll try to pipe down... _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
