> dax2 wrote: >> I don't know how many problem other writers encount with "\relative c'" >> but I am interested to hear. I have completely abandoned it in favour >> of true pitch.
I use absolute octaves and (make my editor) enter all durations. This makes copy-and-paste more reliable. Bernard Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I can see that a solfeggio notation might be useful. as for you remarks > on relative pitch information. Some people may find it easier to enter > the pitches in this way but it makes the score almost impossible to edit > afterwards. NoteEdit exports lilypond scores in this format and the > first thing I do with them is run them through a perl script that > "de-relativises" them. We could use the LilyPond compiler to read a (part of a) file, make some transformation (relative->absolute, transposition) and then output the result. That would require to define functions that can print music expressions. For most common tasks, only notes/skips/rests would be changed, so other pieces of text would be left as is (we have access for each music expression to start/end locations, and to the input text). So we would need to write 1) functions that format notes/rests/skips and 2) the logic of the wanted transformations. LilyPond gives the parsing for free. Then, this could be used in editors, with the benefit of being editor-independant. nicolas _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
