On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:33 PM, David Raleigh Arnold<d...@openguitar.com> wrote: > It is also perfectly reasonable for a person who has been writing > music for decades for it to make no sense. Why? Because it > makes no sense, and never did. > > Why not a \followKeySignature command? > > It would require an "n" in addition to the other four chromatic > sign designations, and that's it. It would save typing, and > it would make the notes blocks easier to read, for /musicians/ > that is.
I do have to disagree here... First of all, let me tell you that I am terrible at reading sheet music (I do know how to read notes, but just barely, and am unable to play a tune on the piano in any acceptable speed). When I see a black dot in the middle of a staaf, and it's a G cleff, I tend to play a 'b' note, even if the music is in F (and consequenly has one flat). If I were to read a note block 'by eye', and would see a key signature in F (major), and see a 'b' note, that's what I would play on the piano, and never a b-flat. I think that Lilypond's method of inputting the notes that _are to be played on the instrument_ (disregarding transposed instruments for now...) is the way to go. It's confused me at first, but if ou would'nt do that, it would be almost impossible to transpose a melody to another key and/or instrument. It would also royally screw things up if you'd first type the notes and later add another key signature. If you do that _now_, the music becomes unreadable because of the extra flats, naturals and sharps. In _your_ case, the music would come out sounding differently if you change the key signature. Not a good plan... Christ van Willegen -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user