Hi,
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:34 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 12:20:19AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> So the first pitch will _always_ be special-cased. With a reference
>>> pitch, it is special-cased to refer to that absolute pitch. Withou
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 12:20:19AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Olivier Biot writes:
>>
>> > Treating the first pitch of \music in \relative \music differently is
>> > not intuitive and will likely result in octave errors.
>>
>> Treating the first pitch of \music in
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 12:20:19AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Olivier Biot writes:
>
> > Treating the first pitch of \music in \relative \music differently is
> > not intuitive and will likely result in octave errors.
>
> Treating the first pitch of \music in \relative is _absolutely_
> _unav
Jacques Menu writes:
> Hello Folks,
>
> I'm rather new to Lily, and I don't have any cons/pro arguments about
> this change.
>
> After reading the various reactions, a question : why not augment the
> language with a new keyword?
> Could be \relativeanchored or something, and would avoid the need
Hello Folks,
I'm rather new to Lily, and I don't have any cons/pro arguments about this
change.
After reading the various reactions, a question : why not augment the language
with a new keyword?
Could be \relativeanchored or something, and would avoid the need for doc,
snippets and existing us
Evan Driscoll writes:
> On 03/10/2013 03:50 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> The problem I have with talking much about \relative f is that f seems
> arbitrary. However, maybe an explanation linking both of these concepts
> and explaining how f is arrived at will allow both views to coexist.
>
>
On Mar 10, 2013, at 10:22 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> The proposed convert-ly rule of issue 2329 converts everything it can
> interpret (which is the majority) to argumentless \relative. This
> conversion is needed for converting the LilyPond code base, and it
> should be available to the user as
On 03/10/2013 03:50 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
The problem I have with talking much about \relative f is that f seems
arbitrary. However, maybe an explanation linking both of these concepts
and explaining how f is arrived at will allow both views to coexist.
That's what I was trying to get at with
Jim Long writes:
> I think 'recommended' is going too far. At least, I can't see
> that one is always or nearly always better than the other. David
> made some examples of when the proposal could be better,
Not really. I just went into the Learning manual (intended for
beginners) without look
Paul Morris writes:
>> b) should convert-ly make user code walk through that door once?
>
> Hmmm... If people have been using an explicit reference pitch,
> nothing changes in that case.
The proposed convert-ly rule of issue 2329 converts everything it can
interpret (which is the majority) to a
:)
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Wim van Dommelen wrote:
>>> Compared with the \clef behaviour, I see this variant:
>>> melody = { \relative c='4 d e f g f e d c \absolute c,, d,, e,, f,,
>>> g,, \relative c
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Wim van Dommelen wrote:
>
>> Compared with the \clef behaviour, I see this variant:
>>
>> melody = { \relative c='4 d e f g f e d c \absolute c,, d,, e,, f,,
>> g,, \relative c=' d e f }
>
> I think this may be technically impossible (or
Wim van Dommelen writes:
> melody = { \relative c='4 d e f g f e d c \absolute c,, d,, e,, f,,
> g,, \relative c=' d e f }
Executive summary: that's an unmaintainable nightmare. If you don't
care about reading technical rants, you might as well stop reading now.
> The { } only wrap the notes f
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Wim van Dommelen wrote:
>
> On 10 Mar 2013, at 10:06 , David Kastrup wrote:
>> Barely tongue-in-cheek:
>>
>> absolute =
>> #(define-music-function (parser location music) (ly:music?)
>> (make-music 'TransposedMusic 'element music))
>>
>> When placed inside of a
On Sat, 9 Mar 2013, Paul Morris wrote:
On Mar 9, 2013, at 10:05 PM, Jim Long wrote:
I would rather not have convert-ly change any use of \relative with an explicit
reference pitch.
That was my thought too. Of course it would be possible, but since there would
be no change to the usage
On 10 Mar 2013, at 10:06 , David Kastrup wrote:
Wim van Dommelen writes:
Agree, we should have an easy way to switch from absolute to relative
(Yes, everthing inside \relative { } is relative, all other is
absolute, I know), like: \absolute: from here on everything is
absolute like \clef bas
Jim Long writes:
> On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 11:40:14AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Well, the new mnemonic would be "first pitch after \relative is
>> absolute"
>
> I'm not sure whether this is profound or profane, so please
> excuse, but
>
> For just the case of \relative WITHOUT a refe
Wim van Dommelen writes:
> Agree, we should have an easy way to switch from absolute to relative
> (Yes, everthing inside \relative { } is relative, all other is
> absolute, I know), like: \absolute: from here on everything is
> absolute like \clef bass tells me: from here on display everything i
Evan Driscoll writes:
> On 3/9/2013 7:31 PM, Jim Long wrote:
>> So if somehow I've made two consecutive correct postulates,
>> wouldn't a user who used the mnemonic:
>>
>> "If no reference pitch is given, then the first pitch after
>> \relative is relative to f"
>>
>> ...
>>
>> So, addressing
Regards,
Wim.
On 9 Mar 2013, at 05:45 , Keith OHara wrote:
Colin Hall gmail.com> writes:
In my early days with Lilypond I learned this to my cost. I've never
used \relative since then.
I stopped using \relative about a year ago, because absolute note
entry is
vastly easier.
Not if y
On Mar 9, 2013, at 10:05 PM, Jim Long wrote:
> I would rather not have convert-ly change any use of \relative with an
> explicit reference pitch.
That was my thought too. Of course it would be possible, but since there would
be no change to the usage of explicit reference pitches, I don't see
On 3/9/2013 7:31 PM, Jim Long wrote:
> So if somehow I've made two consecutive correct postulates,
> wouldn't a user who used the mnemonic:
>
> "If no reference pitch is given, then the first pitch after
> \relative is relative to f"
>
> ...
>
> So, addressing those who are put off by a perceive
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 12:49:31PM -0500, Paul Morris wrote:
>
> As someone mentioned, it might be helpful to explain things in
> the docs something like the following: If there is no explicit
> reference pitch, the first note defaults to being relative to f
Yet another death knell to my earlier
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 12:22:59PM +0100, Francisco Vila wrote:
>
> I was currently using \relative f { } anyway, so this would
> allow removing the f, leaving the {...} intact, which for me would
> imply a smooth transition to the new behavior.
I had a feeling my observation wasn't original. Al
On Sat, Mar 09, 2013 at 11:40:14AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Well, the new mnemonic would be "first pitch after \relative is
> absolute"
I'm not sure whether this is profound or profane, so please
excuse, but
For just the case of \relative WITHOUT a reference pitch:
I. Am I correct t
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 4:35 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Olivier Biot
> wrote:
> >> Thinking of which, I believe I am struggling with "music entry notation"
> >> versus "music storage": writing in relative pitch is often easier for
> not
On Mar 9, 2013, at 4:47 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> So that's the next step: opening the door on \relative { } again, or rather a
> different door with the same door handle.
Interesting discussion. I like the new/proposed behavior for \relative { ... }
(without reference pitch), and would pro
On Sat, 9 Mar 2013, Paul Scott wrote:
On 03/09/2013 06:26 AM, James Harkins wrote:
I don't really have a good idea how some kind of voting process would
look like where we get relevant feedback from a substantial number of
non-specialists.
FWIW, speaking as a Lilypond user with some programm
On 03/09/2013 06:26 AM, James Harkins wrote:
I don't really have a good idea how some kind of voting process would
look like where we get relevant feedback from a substantial number of
non-specialists.
FWIW, speaking as a Lilypond user with some programming experience (but who
is not a LP develo
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Olivier Biot wrote:
>> Thinking of which, I believe I am struggling with "music entry notation"
>> versus "music storage": writing in relative pitch is often easier for note
>> entry, but absolute pitches are IMHO better suited for storing
Olivier Biot writes:
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 12:20 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Personally I think that
> >
> > c'' \relative { ... }
> >
> > is more intuitive than
> >
> > \relative c'' { ... }
>
>
> music functions don't look back into context
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Olivier Biot wrote:
> Thinking of which, I believe I am struggling with "music entry notation"
> versus "music storage": writing in relative pitch is often easier for note
> entry, but absolute pitches are IMHO better suited for storing music. I may
> be trying to d
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 12:20 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Olivier Biot writes:
>
> > I have mixed feelings regarding the proposed syntax update of
> > \relative.
> >
> > Treating the first pitch of \music in \relative \music differently is
> > not intuitive and will likely result in octave errors.
David Kastrup wrote Saturday, March 09, 2013 10:40 AM
> So far, the response has been quite a mixed bag. So here is how I think
> we may proceed on this.
>
> a) stop any further use of the current \relative { ... }
> That's issue 3231.
> b) Implement new proposed behavior for \relative { ...
Am 09.03.2013 07:04, schrieb Matthew Collett:
> On 9/03/2013, at 12:22 am, Francisco Vila wrote:
>
>> 2013/3/8 Jan Nieuwenhuizen :
>>> David Kastrup writes:
>>>
Issue 3229: Patch: Make \relative { ... } interpret the first pitch as
an absolute one
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> +1 , I was currently
> I don't really have a good idea how some kind of voting process would
> look like where we get relevant feedback from a substantial number of
> non-specialists.
FWIW, speaking as a Lilypond user with some programming experience (but who
is not a LP developer) -- I was skeptical of the change at
Janek Warchoł writes:
> this suggestion might take the crown of the most discussed change away
> from the treble clef touchup - i'm impressed :)
Well, easy if it's an extensive change proposed by a quarrelsome
blockhead having nothing to do with his time except working on and
talking about LilyP
Federico Bruni writes:
> Il 07/03/2013 20:06, David Kastrup ha scritto:
>> The idea is that \relative { ... } (namely \relative used without an
>> explicit reference pitch) uses the first note inside as the reference
>> pitch.
>
> I like this idea, as it makes the input a bit cleaner.
>
> For tho
Hi,
this suggestion might take the crown of the most discussed change away
from the treble clef touchup - i'm impressed :)
Anyway, i see the situation as follows:
- most of us consider changing the behaviour of \relative {} (without
explicit reference pitch) a good idea,
- we (i.e. user community)
Il 07/03/2013 20:06, David Kastrup ha scritto:
The idea is that \relative { ... } (namely \relative used without an
explicit reference pitch) uses the first note inside as the reference
pitch.
I like this idea, as it makes the input a bit cleaner.
For those of us who are used to the old way, i
Olivier Biot writes:
> I have mixed feelings regarding the proposed syntax update of
> \relative.
>
> Treating the first pitch of \music in \relative \music differently is
> not intuitive and will likely result in octave errors.
Treating the first pitch of \music in \relative is _absolutely_
_un
Shane Brandes writes:
> It's funny. I think i have used \absolute maybe three times. It is too
> much extra typing.
We don't even _have_ \absolute... And you'll be hard put to specify the
reference pitch for \relative in anything but absolute mode.
--
David Kastrup
_
Keith OHara writes:
>> Colin Hall gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > In my early days with Lilypond I learned this to my cost. I've
>> > never used \relative since then.
>
> I stopped using \relative about a year ago, because absolute note
> entry is vastly easier.
Well, then both your feedback, short
On 9/03/2013, at 12:22 am, Francisco Vila wrote:
> 2013/3/8 Jan Nieuwenhuizen :
>> David Kastrup writes:
>>
>>> Issue 3229: Patch: Make \relative { ... } interpret the first pitch as
>>> an absolute one
>>
>> +1
>
> +1 , I was currently using \relative f { } anyway, so this would
> allow remo
It's funny. I think i have used \absolute maybe three times. It is too
much extra typing.
Shane
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Keith OHara wrote:
>> Colin Hall gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > In my early days with Lilypond I learned this to my cost. I've never
>> > used \relative since then.
>
> I
> Colin Hall gmail.com> writes:
>
> > In my early days with Lilypond I learned this to my cost. I've never
> > used \relative since then.
I stopped using \relative about a year ago, because absolute note entry is
vastly easier.
When writing, I do not generally remember the previous note (more l
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:43 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>
> >>> Well... if you just don't emit the warning if the first pitch in a
> >>> \relative {} block is incorrect, then it seems like you get exactly
> >>> the current proposal except that you have to spell \relative {
2013/3/8 Klaus Föhl :
> I am somewhat unhappy with the concept behind the new default use
> being \relative {...} without qualifier as it mixes absolute and relative
> pitch writing within the bracket. At least as it is explained.
I am not sure it mixes absolute and relative. The first note is
rel
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> 2013/3/7 David Kastrup :
>>>
Please take a look at
Issue 3229: Patch: Make \relative { ... } interpret the first pitch as
an absolute one
>>
>> To be absolutely clear, am I right that this patch will not affect the
>> use of \relative with a given p
Francisco Vila writes:
> 2013/3/8 Jan Nieuwenhuizen :
>> David Kastrup writes:
>>
>>> Issue 3229: Patch: Make \relative { ... } interpret the first pitch as
>>> an absolute one
>>
>> +1
>
> +1 , I was currently using \relative f { } anyway, so this would
> allow removing the f, leaving the {...}
2013/3/8 Jan Nieuwenhuizen :
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Issue 3229: Patch: Make \relative { ... } interpret the first pitch as
>> an absolute one
>
> +1
+1 , I was currently using \relative f { } anyway, so this would
allow removing the f, leaving the {...} intact, which for me would
imply a sm
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> Well... if you just don't emit the warning if the first pitch in a
>>> \relative {} block is incorrect, then it seems like you get exactly
>>> the current proposal except that you have to spell \relative { c''
>>> } as \relative { c='' } instead.
>>
>> I like that idea
>> Well... if you just don't emit the warning if the first pitch in a
>> \relative {} block is incorrect, then it seems like you get exactly
>> the current proposal except that you have to spell \relative { c''
>> } as \relative { c='' } instead.
>
> I like that idea!
Indeed, this has some benef
Colin Hall writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Martin Tarenskeen writes:
>>
> The idea is that \relative { ... } (namely \relative used without an
> explicit reference pitch) uses the first note inside as the reference
> pitch. That is, if the first note happens to be written as fi
David Kastrup writes:
> Martin Tarenskeen writes:
>
The idea is that \relative { ... } (namely \relative used without an
explicit reference pitch) uses the first note inside as the reference
pitch. That is, if the first note happens to be written as fis'' it
will sound as fi
Robert Schmaus writes:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013, at 09:06 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Robert Schmaus writes:
>>
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > I haven't read all posts on this subject, so sorry should I write
>> > something that's already been written.
>> > Why not keep the \relative { } syntax as
Am 07.03.2013 20:21, schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
One rationale is to stop the "distribution" of the information for
the first pitch to potentially quite separate places, like being
able to write
\new Staff \relative {
\key aes \major
<< % Voice one
{ c''2 aes4. bes8 }
...
instead o
David Kastrup writes:
> Issue 3229: Patch: Make \relative { ... } interpret the first pitch as
> an absolute one
+1
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl
___
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013, at 09:06 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Robert Schmaus writes:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I haven't read all posts on this subject, so sorry should I write
> > something that's already been written.
> > Why not keep the \relative { } syntax as one supported
> > way and simply
Robert Schmaus writes:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I haven't read all posts on this subject, so sorry should I write
> something that's already been written.
> Why not keep the \relative { } syntax as one supported
> way and simply change the \relative { } syntax to what David
> proposed?
Uh, that was
Hi everyone,
I haven't read all posts on this subject, so sorry should I write
something that's already been written.
Why not keep the \relative { } syntax as one supported
way and simply change the \relative { } syntax to what David
proposed? I myself have always only used the first version (
David Kastrup writes:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 06:29:34AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Graham Percival writes:
>>>
>>> > Whereas keeping the explicit initial pitch:
>>> > \relative c' { c' c' }
>>> > the c' outside the {} means "middle C"
>>> > each c' inside
Graham Percival writes:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 06:29:34AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>>
>> > Whereas keeping the explicit initial pitch:
>> > \relative c' { c' c' }
>> > the c' outside the {} means "middle C"
>> > each c' inside the {} means "jump an octave high
Graham Percival writes:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 12:37:55AM +0100, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:
>>
>> >>The idea is that \relative { ... } (namely \relative used without an
>> >>explicit reference pitch) uses the first note inside as the reference
>> >>pitch. That is, if the first note happens to
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 11:52:21PM -0600, Evan Driscoll wrote:
> Well... if you just don't emit the warning if the first pitch in a
> \relative {} block is incorrect, then it seems like you get exactly the
> current proposal except that you have to spell \relative { c'' } as
> \relative { c='' } in
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 06:29:34AM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > Whereas keeping the explicit initial pitch:
> > \relative c' { c' c' }
> > the c' outside the {} means "middle C"
> > each c' inside the {} means "jump an octave higher"
>
> Not every piece starts fr
On 3/7/2013 9:57 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> That's a real tough test... Asking someone who has just managed to get
> along with one convention to move to the next one. Perhaps you should
> take this opportunity for asking someone who has not yet started working
> with LilyPond.
Well I don't quit
Colin Hall writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Please take a look at
>>
>> Issue 3229: Patch: Make \relative { ... } interpret the first pitch as
>> an absolute one
>>
>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3229>
>>
>> How do people feel about this?
>
> The \relative feature works
Graham Percival writes:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:06:24PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> The idea is that \relative { ... } (namely \relative used without an
>> explicit reference pitch) uses the first note inside as the reference
>> pitch. That is, if the first note happens to be written
Martin Tarenskeen writes:
>>> The idea is that \relative { ... } (namely \relative used without an
>>> explicit reference pitch) uses the first note inside as the reference
>>> pitch. That is, if the first note happens to be written as fis'' it
>>> will sound as fis'' (absolute pitch).
>
> I wou
Jim Long writes:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 11:27:27PM +0100, Janek Warcho?? wrote:
>
>> Also, what would happen if someone used q as the first thing after
>> initial chord?
>
> No change. q works by repeating the pitches, not by "replaying"
> the input syntax. Otherwise even the current behavio
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 8:06 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> The idea is that \relative { ... } (namely \relative used without an
>> explicit reference pitch) uses the first note inside as the reference
>> pitch. That is, if the first note happens to be written as fis'' it
>>
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 12:37:55AM +0100, Martin Tarenskeen wrote:
>
> >>The idea is that \relative { ... } (namely \relative used without an
> >>explicit reference pitch) uses the first note inside as the reference
> >>pitch. That is, if the first note happens to be written as fis'' it
> >>will
I would prefer not to use the new concept of relative. It seems
awkward when a piece does not begin on a tonic it shifts the gamut in
a less useful way.
Shane
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Martin Tarenskeen
wrote:
>
>
>>> The idea is that \relative { ... } (namely \relative used without an
>>>
The idea is that \relative { ... } (namely \relative used without an
explicit reference pitch) uses the first note inside as the reference
pitch. That is, if the first note happens to be written as fis'' it
will sound as fis'' (absolute pitch).
I wouldn't mind, if I can still use the the old
David Kastrup writes:
> Please take a look at
>
> Issue 3229: Patch: Make \relative { ... } interpret the first pitch as
> an absolute one
>
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3229>
>
> How do people feel about this?
The \relative feature works just fine.
My preference is to l
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 11:27:27PM +0100, Janek Warcho?? wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 8:06 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> > The idea is that \relative { ... } (namely \relative used without an
> > explicit reference pitch) uses the first note inside as the reference
> > pitch. That is, if the firs
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:06:24PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> The idea is that \relative { ... } (namely \relative used without an
> explicit reference pitch) uses the first note inside as the reference
> pitch. That is, if the first note happens to be written as fis'' it
> will sound as fis
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 8:06 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> The idea is that \relative { ... } (namely \relative used without an
> explicit reference pitch) uses the first note inside as the reference
> pitch. That is, if the first note happens to be written as fis'' it
> will sound as fis'' (absolute
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:06 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Please take a look at
>
> Issue 3229: Patch: Make \relative { ... } interpret the first pitch as
> an absolute one
>
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3229>
>
I wholeheartedly support this change.
Regards,
Nathan
_
Werner wrote Thursday, March 07, 2013 7:21 PM
> For me, everything which leads to a better structure is a good thing,
> so I support this change.
So do I.
Trevor
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listi
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2013/3/7 David Kastrup :
>>
>>> Please take a look at
>>>
>>> Issue 3229: Patch: Make \relative { ... } interpret the first pitch as
>>> an absolute one
>
> To be absolutely clear, am I right that this patch will not affect the
> use of \relative with a given pitch like
>
2013/3/7 David Kastrup :
>
>> Please take a look at
>>
>> Issue 3229: Patch: Make \relative { ... } interpret the first pitch as
>> an absolute one
To be absolutely clear, am I right that this patch will not affect the
use of \relative with a given pitch like
\relative d' { ... }
?
Then yes, I'm
David Kastrup writes:
> Please take a look at
>
> Issue 3229: Patch: Make \relative { ... } interpret the first pitch as
> an absolute one
>
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3229>
>
> It's clear that this change will require quite a bit more work if it
> gets accepted, and it
I believe this approach, especially for new users, is less abstract
than defining a 'syntactic' octave position before entering real
music. I think it's a good idea.
Jethro
Werner LEMBERG (07 Mar 2013 @ 20:21)
One rationale is to stop the "distribution" of the information for
the first pitch
> One rationale is to stop the "distribution" of the information for
> the first pitch to potentially quite separate places, like being
> able to write
>
> \new Staff \relative {
> \key aes \major
> << % Voice one
> { c''2 aes4. bes8 }
> ...
>
> instead of the previous
>
> \new Staff
86 matches
Mail list logo
