[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I query only the particular reasoning behind the rationale currently
> employed, especially since we occasionally get readers that pose this very
> question from time to time and, thus far, I have not seen an answer to
> convince me to the bottom of my heart of the funda
Ralph Little wrote:
> HEEEYYY! COOL DOWN Mister!
Uh, oh, sorry. My bad.
> No, that is incorrect. It would be correct it you had to handle accidental
> policy in the notation specified, but you don't. All I am suggesting is that
> where the key signature gives a default, that default should be ap
h
Ralphy
-Original Message-
From: Rune Zedeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 3:12 PM
To: Ralph Little
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fis or not fis, that is the question.
Ralph Little wrote:
> Can anybody explain why, despite having a "fs&
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?
I don't really understnad what you expect/request.
Would you like to be able to simpl
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
