Hi Damian (et al):
semantically i completely disagree... ;--)
Excellent! I like a good discussion... =)
in the case of a 'transposing at the octave' instrument such as
piccolo or double bass,
the clef change or 8va/b sign is implied and simply omitted as a
convenience.
Aside: we (all) should immediately stop doing that -- we should start
writing ALL instruments with "transposed clefs", to be clear. ;-)
Regardless, the question (for me) still comes down to the way we are
presenting "transposition" in the documentation. Does "transposition"
mean taking a set of pitches and changing the pitches that we want to
hear (e.g., \transpose c g { a b c d }) or leaving the pitches we
want to hear as is (explicitly, \transpose c c { a b c d}) and
*notating* them in a non-trivial/non-obvious way?
One process (transposition) alters the original pitches, the other
(clef *or* octavation) is simply a notational convention -- two very
different results, IMO.
Most importantly to the current issue, when looking in the Lilypond
documentation for information on ottava brackets:
1. I would never search for "transposition";
2. The heading "octave transposition" is less accurately
descriptive of the intended content than "ottava brackets".
Our goal in all of this should be to IMPROVE the documentation, not
make it less clear.
Cheers,
Kieren.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
