2015-08-10 3:05 GMT+02:00 David Raleigh Arnold <d...@openguitar.com>: > On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:33:50 -0500 > Brother Gabriel-Marie <brgabr...@sspx.org> wrote: > >> When you use key signatures like A major or B Major you end >> up with a lot of naturals in the score for which you may >> have to manually add sharps. >> >> Is there a switch that will automatically sharp all the >> naturals? >> I was looking at this: >> http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/displaying-pitches#automatic-accidentals >> >> This was the closest I could see: >> \accidentalStyle modern >>
Hi Rale, I hesitated to post in this thread for some reasons. One reason was, I had no clue what it was about. I simply did not understand the question. In an earlier post David Kastrup wrote about different thinking about note-names due to language and culture. It really helped me to understand that Brother Gabriel-Marie expected { key a \major c } to print what I'd call a cis. I never ever would have had that expectation, but after David K's post I can understand the thinking, at least. Let me quote this part of his post again: 2015-07-24 14:20 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: [...] > LilyPond's notename philosophy happens to be from a culture remote from > the English speaking world. In Dutch or German, you never, ever, would > call a "cis" anything other than "cis". It's not a "c sharp", namely > some qualified "c". That's a totally different note and name. There is > no such thing as a "c natural" when talking about notes. It's either > "c" or not. You don't need to specify the key signature when discussing > a chord: all note names are absolute. Always. > > LilyPond is internationalized in that it offers English notenames, but > it does not offer the accompanying notename philosophy. And the > fuzziness coming with such a philosophy is not helpful in the context of > a computer description of music, so it's not all that likely that this > will ever change. [...] I'd suggest you read it again und try to understand. > The developers have resisted this from the beginning, because > they don't realize how easy it would be. I really doubt. > There may be also a > certain contempt for the user or composer who is not expected to > know what key he's in. This is bullshit, sorry. > There are editing tools which will add the > chromatic signs for you. I posted one on this list some time ago, > a bash script using sed. Nicholas Sceaux has written one. It may > be that the Garibaldi editor will do it, I don't know. > > The appropriate notes are sharped or flatted unless there is an > "n" or any other chromatic sign. That's it. Simple, fault > tolerant, and not requiring any changes at all to the many > choices already present in lilypond. > > \follow {} has been suggested as the command. I would suggest > that \follow indicate which notes with the sharp or flat, as > > \follow fs cs gs {music} > > to avoid language problems as much as possible. > > It is possible that a piece may have so many of certain > accidentals that \follow would be more trouble unless you lied > about the key. You would probably not use it for a blues in G. > > The need is to insert the chromatic signs > before anything else, such as transposition, is done. > Kindest regards, Rale If I understand correctly your proposal is that \language "english" m = { ff' f' fs' } \m \follow fs \m \follow ff \m will be printed different. In my thinking that's absolute crude. Though, obviously there are other opinions about that. Patches are always welcome. Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user