> On Jan 26, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Chris Yate <chrisy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, you're probably right. > > Though whatever you choose would have to be: > > 1) equally easy to read in all keys (which is demonstrably NOT the case for > traditional notation) > 2) easy to manage when key changes > 3) make it easy to identify octaves, and possibly the tonic, and harmonic > relationship between notes etc. > 4) suitable for all tessitura, which of course we currently manage with clefs > 5) compact > 6) easy to notate by hand > 7) avoid confusion with traditional notation (here Clairnote fails very badly > indeed for me)
Yep, it’s a tall order trying to achieve all desirable features in the same system. Seems there are always trade-offs. (I originally resisted using hollow and solid notes for pitch to preserve more continuity with the traditional system, but then came to think the benefits were worth it. Of course, YMMV.) Cheers, -Paul
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
