Hello.
On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 10:00:46 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Gilles,
[...]
Another thing: For me, also the implementation of transposing
instruments is less than ideal (I prefer to write the pitches in
concert pitch and have them transposed for the parts, rather than
the
other way around, as it is implemented at the moment).
[...]
Can you give an example? To my knowledge, both ways of encoding are
equally simple in LilyPond. [But I perhaps I misunderstood what you
mean.]
This wasn’t from me…
I know; I hadn't seen that yours was the recipient's address. And I
just hit "Reply all" which usually does the right thing for a ML.
[I don't see the purpose of CC'ing someone who is on the list...]
but I wholeheartedly agree: Lily’s
default/built-in implementation of transposing instruments is rather
incomplete/poor (see, for example,
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-01/msg00201.html>
and
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2014-05/msg00067.html>
for an idea of the problems and workarounds).
I believe there has been some recent improvement via openlilylib, but
I haven’t had time to investigate
In any case, the main distro should have much better tools to handle
transposing instruments more deftly.
I didn't have all the info; from the statement above it looked like the
"problem" was for encoding a part of a transposing instrument whereas
the links you provided point to difficulties for switching instrument
within a \score.
Sorry for the noise,
Gilles
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
