On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 04:45:13PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 03:58:32PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > > I don't think that F completely solves it. I mean, suppose I want > > to get an A440. Do I do > > > > I mean, I remember that c' is middle C, so c'' is C 523, so it's > > easy for me to write > > In contrast, doing an arithmetic mean on the frequency is not exactly > the most natural operation for me, and since to the mind of \relative, > feses is above eisis, frequencies are not a reliable indicator for > proximity anyway.
Oh, I'm not taking the arithmetic mean of frequencies. I could have just said "c'' is the C above middle C", but I figured that C 523 was less typing. > > Coming up with f' or f'' is only easier if you have the absolute scale > > of lilypond notes memorized, and I certainly don't. (I don't even > > remember if those ocataves start on A or C!) > > > > Granted, I'm biased because I've been staring at > > \relative c{'/''//,/,,} { > > all this time. > > The interesting question is whether \relative c' gives you (namely > Graham Percival) a _better_ idea of what the next note will be rather > than, say, \relative a'. Yes, it does -- with the admission that I'm biased due to familiarity with \relative c. Is a' above or below c' ? I can't remember. I'm not claiming that we should write the documentation for Graham Percival, of course. I think that most newcomers would find it easier to deal with \relative c rather than any other pitch, but if somebody does a proper experiment, I would be convinced otherwise. > For violin players, \relative c' covers nothing below the G-string > (short of accidentals). But that kind of reasoning does not sound > PG-13. I spent 20 years playing cello, so my area below the G-string is much larger than a violinist's. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel