On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 11:26:16PM +1100, Cameron Horsburgh wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 11:49:10PM -0800, Graham Percival wrote:
> > ... I really don't understand this question. If you already know
> > how to transpose from C to Bb, why on earth do you need to ask how
> > to transpose from C to G ?!
>
> He wants it diatonic, so it's not that easy. \transpose c' g {a b c}
> would produce {e fis g} instead of {e f g}.
Oops, I forgot my first-year theory. In this case, he'd need to
write a scheme function. Actually, it wouldn't be hard at all...
this is a perfect intro-level scheme tweak.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader. Neil, Trevor, Valentin:
please don't give the answer. :)
> Even then, the extra \relative makes things get very messy:
Then omit it.
melody = {a b c d e f g}
{ \melody \\ { \transpose c' g \melody }}
Cheers,
- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
