Re: Octavecheck?
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk wrote: Noeck wrote Wednesday, March 25, 2015 6:48 PM Here is a guess what happens (even if that contradicts the docs): The following pitches are perhaps not relative to the octave check but to the previous pitch corrected by the octave check. That would be my explanation too. This would explain it, but the docs would have to be corrected. Yes, it's a doc issue. But is it really useful in this form? Does anyone use it? Greetings, Trevor, Noeck, et al. - Submitted as Issue 4338 : https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4338 Ralph ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Octavecheck?
I think you are right, Nik. It should go to f' instead, based on the docs.
Looks like a bug to me. CC-ing the bug list.
- Abraham
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Nik Repka [via Lilypond]
ml-node+s1069038n17366...@n5.nabble.com wrote:
Hello all,
I'm totally new to Lilypond... but while reading the manual, I have become
seriously confused by the following example of octave check:
\relative c'' {
c4 f g f
c4
\octaveCheck c'
f
\octaveCheck c'
g
\octaveCheck c'
f
}
I understand why the first and third octave checks fail... but I am
uncertain why the last f (which appears in the output as the f below c') is
chosen instead of f'. According to the manual (
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/changing-multiple-pitches),
If this [octave] check fails, a warning is printed, but the previous note
is not changed. Future notes are relative to the controlpitch. However, f
below c' is not relative to c' since it is a fifth away from c'. Or have
I misunderstood what is meant by relative?
Basically, my question is... why do we get f not f'?
Thanks,
-Nik
___
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email] http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=173661i=0
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
--
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
below:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Octavecheck-tp173661.html
To start a new topic under User, email ml-node+s1069038n...@n5.nabble.com
To unsubscribe from Lilypond, click here
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_codenode=2code=dGlzaW1zdC5saWx5cG9uZEBnbWFpbC5jb218Mnw4MzU3Njg3MDU=
.
NAML
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewerid=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.namlbase=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespacebreadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Octavecheck?
Am 25.03.2015 um 18:38 schrieb tisimst:
I think you are right, Nik. It should go to f' instead, based on the
docs. Looks like a bug to me.
Here is a guess what happens (even if that contradicts the docs):
The following pitches are perhaps not relative to the octave check but
to the previous pitch corrected by the octave check.
I am commenting inside your example:
\relative c'' {
c4 f g f
c4
\octaveCheck c'
The c4 is a c'' - check resets to c' - following note is f'
f
\octaveCheck c'
Check passed - continue relative to f' - next note is g'
g
\octaveCheck c'
The g is a g' closer to a c'' - check resets to g - next note is f
f
}
This would explain it, but the docs would have to be corrected.
Btw, the other way to do octave checks seems more intuitive to me:
\relative c'' {
c4 f g f
c='4 f=' g='' f
}
Cheers,
Joram
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Octavecheck?
Noeck wrote Wednesday, March 25, 2015 6:48 PM Here is a guess what happens (even if that contradicts the docs): The following pitches are perhaps not relative to the octave check but to the previous pitch corrected by the octave check. That would be my explanation too. This would explain it, but the docs would have to be corrected. Yes, it's a doc issue. But is it really useful in this form? Does anyone use it? Trevor ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
