On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:39:02 +0100 (CET) Reuben Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I attempted to use \relative c'', but found that mode to be much too > > unpredictable for my tastes. > > It's entirely predictable: if a note a up to a fourth from the previous > one, you don't need a ' or a ,; otherwise, you need one (or more) comma or > tick. What's the problem? You don't get what this user means by unpredictable. You cannot cut and paste, you cannot read it, you cannot trust you eye in multivoice piano context - and I think that there even are some <chord> bugs somewhere along the relative line. \relative just adds another dimension to the readability issue for piano music. Where is which voice? Where is the dynamic for that notecolumn/bar? Is this the upper voice or are your reading the lower voice? When you have more than 10 bars I guess this becomes more and more of an issue. So personal tastes vary. Use what you like. It takes a fraction of a second to enter a lot of '''' Therefore use transpose for what it is meant to do, not as a relative replacement. In certain contexts you even add less of these '''' than you do in \relative mode. (jumping voices, arpeggios, I had a better example the other day). What do you prefer: \absolute_pitch { f a e' f' a' e'' } /* can be read immediately anywhere, cut and pasted into other \absolute */ or \relative c' { f,, a e' f a e' } /* are there two octaves between the f's? */ Consider that you have to find the \relative X specification somewhere 400 lines above if you are reading 100 bar - piece of music. -- donald_j_axel(at)get2net.dk -- http://d-axel.dk/ _______________________________________________ Lilypond-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user