Hi all,
Even more to the (semantic?) point, the following two are IDENTICAL
with respect to pitch:
\version "2.11.37"
\include "english.ly"
musicClef = \relative
{
\clef "treble" f e d c
\clef "treble_8" bf a g f
}
musicOct = \relative
{
f e d c
#(set-octavation -1) bf a g f
}
\score
{
<<
\musicClef
\musicOct
>>
}
In NEITHER case are the PITCHES "transposed" in any way -- in both
cases, the PITCHES are identical... and the same as "the original".
What's happening here is that, in Version #1 (the clef change) we're
explicitly showing that the notation is in a different clef, whereas
in Version #2 (octavation) we're using a shorthand to transpose the
CLEF ITSELF (while leaving the pitches exactly where they are)!
Therefore, I suggest something like "Clef transposition and
octavation", or something like that, so that it's clear that the
PITCHES are not being transposed in any way.
Cheers,
Kieren.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
