> Hmmm… Seems like this primarily works for music without accidentals. Does it really work when you > have a lot of accidentals?
Of course this practice is made for tonal music, but I've known musicians who could sight read and transpose entire scores. It's just a question of having the chops. > Say a note that was a natural in the first key is a sharp in the new key… > in the music that note appears > altered by a sharp sign… you have to read that sharp sign as if it were a > double sharp sign. > > Or, say a note was a sharp in the first key, but is a natural in the > second key… and that note appears in > the music altered by a natural sign… you have to read that natural sign > as a flat sign. > Or am I missing something? Let me give you two examples: A diatonic chord: <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n186483/chord_d.png> transposed up a semitone: <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n186483/chord_eflat.png> And a bit of chromatic music: <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n186483/oferring_c.png> transposed down a *triton*: <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/n186483/offering_fs.png> So you see, it's quite a straight-forward a technique. Yes, accidental translation can be tricky, but with practice it becomes second nature. And again, 300 years ago it was considered a basic skill for any musician worth his salt, it's just modern musicians that are handicapped. Sharon -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/simplifying-chromatic-scale-notation-tp186415p186483.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
