Il 03/03/15 07.56, Michael Hendry ha scritto:
Forgive me for suggesting, but I suggest it improves mental health to
think of transpose in the form:
\transpose "to" "from" \musicExpression
This is what I do, too: I usually think of transpose as `\transpose "to"
"from"` when tranposing instrumental parts from concert pitch to
transposed pitch, and as `\transpose "from" "to"` in all other cases.
I used to think of the transposition in this way until I found a need to
transpose the whole piece to a different key (to accommodate a singer’s
range, for example), and I found the two ways of looking at
transposition tied my brain in knots.
Indeed looking at the same command in two ways might be a bit confusing,
but I got used to it rather easily.
Ideally, I’d like to define the whole-piece transposition at the top of
the file, rather than editing the per-instrument transposition at the
point of book production.
You certainly do not need to change the individual transpositions in
order to transpose an entire piece: nothing stops you from transposing
music that has already been transposed, instead of editing each
`\transpose` command.
When I need to transpose a piece I usually place `\transpose "from"
"to"` just before the music expression inside `\score`.
Unless I need to change the octave of an instrument, this is sufficient.
E.g. if I needed to transpose this piece one tone up...
\score {
<<
\new Staff \transpose bes, c \trumpetPartConcert
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff \pianoRight
\new Staff \pianoLeft
>>
>>
\layout { }
}
... I would simply write
\score {
\transpose c d
<<
\new Staff \transpose bes, c \trumpetPartConcert
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff \pianoRight
\new Staff \pianoLeft
>>
>>
\layout { }
}
Best wishes.
Davide
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
