[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello.
I was reading the lilypond example page
http://lilypond.org/stable/examples.html
and looking at the first page of the first example (Petite Ouverture ...)
it seems that a rest can have an incorrect vertical position. E.g. in bars
12 and 13 the second quaver (eigh
On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 12:03:09 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can anybody explain why, despite having a "fs" specified by the current key
> (for G Major), "fs" or "fis" needs to be specified, rather than just
> assuming that the key fills in the gaps?
I think that a main misconception is that a k
On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 14:55:40 +
Ralph Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can anybody explain why, despite having a "fs" specified by the
> current key(for G Major), "fs" or "fis" needs to be specified, rather
> than just assuming that the key fills in the gaps?
Because assuming that "f" really
Hello.
I was reading the lilypond example page
http://lilypond.org/stable/examples.html
and looking at the first page of the first example (Petite Ouverture ...)
it seems that a rest can have an incorrect vertical position. E.g. in bars
12 and 13 the second quaver (eighth note) rest is in line
Somebody wrote:
> > > | if i'm reading a piece in g major, then i
> > > | will read any note in the bottom space of the treble staff as an
> > > | f-sharp, not as an f. so i write "fis" for this note... :o)
> > >
> > > i don't agree. it is really not an f sharp, it is a natural f in the
> > > key o
David Bobroff wrote:
*snip*
My suggestion? Get used to it if you want to use Lilypond. In the long
run I have not found it to be a burden. Yes, I forget sometimes and have
to correct my input. The authors have made their decision regarding the
input syntax. I don't think they want to change
> The current regime does not (as far as my understanding goes!) aid
> transposition (if you are changing the base key rather than using
> \transpose).
FTR, \transpose works on the key as well as on the notes themselves.
--
Kevin L. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ralph Little wrote:
>Can anybody explain why, despite having a "fs" specified by the current key
>(for G Major), "fs" or "fis" needs to be specified, rather than just
>assuming that the key fills in the gaps?
Well, here's my take on this. Bear in mind that I'm not a Lilypond guru.
It has been me
Background
ever since the time i've tried to update lilypond, i haven't been able to get it
working. last night i tried to install version 1.6.6 from an rpm onto my redhat 7.3
machine. when it complained about not being able to find the fonts i (randomly)
removed the .pk and the .tfm files th
On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 08:36:08 s.abeccara wrote:
> Dear David,
>
> thank you for your reply, it is helpful and understandable. Your
> suggestion to use ABC sounds good. Could you give me an URL to it?
Search on google: abc music notation
>
> Now I see the point in Lilypond needing explicit alterat
Dear Mats,
thank you for your reply. As for improving the manual, I would suggest
to put in the documentation some fully commented example of (most
common) various types of music pieces that can be written, with all
the elements needed. For instance, a choral piece, with lyrics, tempo,
cresc
Dear David,
thank you for your reply, it is helpful and understandable. Your
suggestion to use ABC sounds good. Could you give me an URL to it?
Now I see the point in Lilypond needing explicit alterations on notes.
Some of the replies I got were discouraging for a newcomer in this
field, w
12 matches
Mail list logo
