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 simply specify which accidentals lilypond
was to write instead of which notes they were to represent?
This would be a hell to work with.
Think of this example:
{ gis g gis gis | gis gis ges g }
This gives output (n meaning natural):
#O nO #O O | #O O nbO nO
Would you REALLY prefer to input it like
{ gs gn gs g | gs g gnf gn }
?!?!
This way you would need to explicitly think about all the sophisticated
rules about accidental typesetting - and if you should wish to alter an
accidental-rule you would have to change all your input by hand instead
of simply replacing the accidental macro with something else.
Generally, this approach leads to a total overlap between notation and
music - actually your note entries even depend on the TIME SIGNATURE
(!!!) - if you for instance should feel like replacing 4/4 with 8/4,
then the 5th note should be g instead of gs.
No, I really don't understand why people are so unhapppy about the lily
approach. Before finding Lily, I took a look at abc and Music-TeX, and i
thought "Yikes, this is far to notation-concrete. Surely not flexible
enough!". I found Lily - and I just thought "YES, THIS IS THE WAY TO DO
IT - THIS IS WHERE I WANNA BE!"
I REALLY, REALLY, don't understand why so many of you are annoyed with
the way that lilypond works.
Did I misunderstand your request?
-Rune
_______________________________________________
Lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
