Hi David (et al),
Just to be absolutely clear, the fallacy in your argument lies in the
following statement:
It's necessary to consider the sound of the music,
*and not the conventional rules of printed scores*
when doing Lilypond pitch input.
Quite the contrary, the "conventional rules of printed scores" DO
consider (incorporate) "the sound of the music" — that's why the
Western notation system works as well as it does (despite some flaws/
shortcomings, and countless attempts to replace it with a "superior"
alternative).
Let's start by considering the CRoPS with respect to a simple
notation example. If the key signature is D major (i.e., two sharps),
and the pitch class [!!] being displayed is the top line of the
treble clef (i.e., F), then the CRoPS tells us that the actual pitch
that should be performed is an F-sharp (i.e., fis'').
Now, let's "do Lilypond pitch input" for this same example. You want
Lilypond to output an F-sharp at the top of the treble clef, and
display the result "in D major" (i.e., with a D major key signature).
Step 1 is to define/list the pitch(es) you want engraved:
theMusic = { fis'' }
Step 2 is to build the score, with clef and key signature:
\score { \new Staff << \key d \major \clef treble \theMusic >> }
Doing the same thing *without* the pitch alteration (sharp) in
theMusic definition exposes the fundamental problem with a "follow-
the-key-signature" approach.
Hope this helps!
Kieren.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user