Graham Percival wrote:
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. :)
Great, that helps a lot. I haven't got a clue what scheme is. I'm a
musician, not a programmer. I don't even have years of music theory
behind me - I play my instruments and do it well. Programming is for the
brainiacs, of which I am not, and I am quite happy with that.
--
Chip
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
