Re: Auto-transposition
Thomas Morleywrites: > 2017-12-18 16:08 GMT+01:00 Kieren MacMillan : > >> I suppose I could use single variables more if Lilypond had better >> "at runtime" methods of reusing material (e.g., inline variable >> definition) > > Have a look at > https://lilypondforum.de/index.php/topic,195.msg1231.html#msg1231 > Though, I have no clue about the consequences... A number of things wrong with it. For one, it's not well-defined just when the variable is available. For another, there is no point in using a string? argument when you actually need a symbol? argument. And worst of all, the command does not bother creating a copy, so any destructive manipulations on one variable (like \relative, \transpose, and others) will magically appear in the other variable. Not particularly enthused about the side effect in the middle of music either: people might expect \tag to have an effect on whether or not some sequence is defined in some branch, but it won't. But that's not all that dissimilar to surprises about \relative and \tag . -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Hi Harm, > Have a look at > https://lilypondforum.de/index.php/topic,195.msg1231.html#msg1231 Ooh! It even works outside of the parent variable (as would be absolutely necessary in my usage): %%% SNIPPET BEGINS \version "2.19.80" tee = #(define-music-function (name mus) (string? ly:music?) (ly:parser-define! (string->symbol name) mus) mus) testing_this = { g'1 \repeat volta 2 \tee MusicRi { c''1 e''1_\markup \halign #-1.5 "Fine" } \repeat volta 2 { g''1 d''1_\markup \halign #-0.2 \column { \right-align "D.S. al Fine" \right-align "e poi" } } \MusicRi } another_test = { R1 \MusicRi R1*2 \MusicRi } \score { << \new Staff \testing_this \new Staff \another_test >> } %%% SNIPPET ENDS > Though, I have no clue about the consequences... Hmmm… It would be nice to hear from others about whether this construction makes sense, is "safe", etc. Certainly the ability to define variables "in-line" would be a bit of a game-changer for my Lily-coding. Thanks! Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
2017-12-18 16:08 GMT+01:00 Kieren MacMillan: > I suppose I could use single variables more if Lilypond had better "at > runtime" methods of reusing material (e.g., inline variable definition) Have a look at https://lilypondforum.de/index.php/topic,195.msg1231.html#msg1231 Though, I have no clue about the consequences... Cheers, Harm ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On 18/12/17 15:08, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Saul, \resetRelativeOctave belongs IMO always as part of the definition of a music expression, ideally on the line directly preceding note entry. Agreed. Until it's a repeated phrase, but not necessarily the same octave. iirc (as I said it's a long time ago) this phrase kept cropping up in the music. Horses for courses, and I think I didn't put \resetRelativeOctave in the variable itself because it didn't work for some reason. Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Hi David, > This is, in part, a result of our documentation being so granular. True. > Putting it another way: I doubt that many of the issues with \relative rear > their heads in the examples in the docs. So true. And thus newbies aren't really [explicitly] taught how to use relative mode correctly (e.g., “as early as possible”), so when they start to engrave anything more complex than the simple doc examples, they run into problems (hence all the questions posted to the list). > A discussion of the pros and cons of each method with examples could be > appropriate in perhaps the LM, or in > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/writing-pitches Agreed. Best, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Hi Saul, > \resetRelativeOctave belongs IMO always as part of the definition of a music > expression, ideally on the line directly preceding note entry. Agreed. > Personally, I think it is preferable to define all of the music for each > context by explicitly typing it in a single variable. Using music variables > for fragments or phrases which are then transformed or combined is a recipe > for code that is difficult to read and debug, and IMO virtually never helps > the compositional process in the long run. There may be use cases where that > sort of thing is appropriate, but I imagine they must be very far from the > kind of work I do. Hmm… Essentially every form of music that I compose and engrave benefits from using and combining music variables: 1. pop and musical theatre forms (repeats, transposed last verses, etc.); 2. choral music (choral unisons, strict counterpoint, etc.); 3. new concert music (row manipulations, etc.); 4. orchestral works (repeats, counterpoint, doublings, etc.). Explicitly typing everything into a single variable for each context is time-consuming and error-prone (though admittedly Frescobaldi has *some* tools that alleviate *some* of those issues). I suppose I could use single variables more if Lilypond had better "at runtime" methods of reusing material (e.g., inline variable definition) — but given the current toolbox, I shudder to think how much less efficient my work would be if I was limited to single variables per context. Best, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
I would highly recommend against this type of coding style. \resetRelativeOctave belongs IMO always as part of the definition of a music expression, ideally on the line directly preceding note entry. Personally, I think it is preferable to define all of the music for each context by explicitly typing it in a single variable. Using music variables for fragments or phrases which are then transformed or combined is a recipe for code that is difficult to read and debug, and IMO virtually never helps the compositional process in the long run. There may be use cases where that sort of thing is appropriate, but I imagine they must be very far from the kind of work I do. On Dec 15, 2017 7:54 AM, "Wols Lists"wrote: On 15/12/17 13:45, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 15 Dec 2017 at 10:02:19 (+), Wols Lists wrote: >> On 15/12/17 06:20, Saul Tobin wrote: >>> Relative mode makes perfect sense if you're entering music that cares >>> mainly about the relationship between notes within a phrase (i.e. most >>> music). IMO absolute mode might be easier from the perspective of the >>> software, but it's not how most musicians think, and that's >>> important. Maybe the documentation could do a better job explaining the >>> semantics of relative mode and when to use \resetRelativeOctave? >>> >>> I take exception to the idea that relative mode ought to be deprecated. >>> I've been using exclusively relative mode to compose for almost ten >>> years, and I think it's great. >> >> I think Han-Wen actually wrote \resetRelativeOctave for me :-) >> >> But if you don't understand relative then it will mess you up. >> >> Does anybody (not me :-) want to write a little update for the docu that >> will make both relative mode and \resetRelativeOctave (hopefully) clear? >> >> It originated when I was (iirc) transcribing Chattanooga Choo-Choo, and >> there's a repeated phrase, so I thought I'd define it as a variable. >> OOOPPSS! The starting and ending notes are a fifth or more apart, and >> the phrase repeats with nothing else in-between. The resulting staircase >> was spectacular! >> >> If somebody would care to take that as hint for putting an example in >> the docu, that's fine by me! :-) > > Just use \relative early. > I was thinking more along the lines of (note this is NOT TESTED) phrase = { c f d g } \relative { \phrase \phrase \phrase } \relative { \resetRelativeOctave \phrase \resetRelativeOctave \phrase \resetRelativeOctave \phrase } Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
> Subject: Re: Re: Auto-transposition > > By the way, whoever is working on the Changes document for upcoming 2.20, > don't forget to mention about \fixed! > >/Mats > I volunteered to do this, so I will make sure to work on describing this feature. > > I don't think there is a clear advantage to use relative vs absolute. > > I think there are clear advantages and disadvantages to both. The main > problem I see is the insistence (implicit in the documentation) that > relative mode is the best for newbies to start with, and the volume of list > posts from newbies having problems with relative mode makes it clear that > that is not true. Perhaps if the documentation were make crystal clear, > with \resetRelativeOctave used in every example, etc., then I could feel > comfortable backing down from my crusade to try to save newbies from the > pitfalls we have [unintentionally] laid for them. > > > > Best, > > Kieren. > This is, in part, a result of our documentation being so granular. Putting it another way: I doubt that many of the issues with \relative rear their heads in the examples in the docs. A discussion of the pros and cons of each method with examples could be appropriate in perhaps the LM, or in http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/writing-pitches Adding \resetRelativeOctave *everywhere* is not consistent with the MWE nature of the examples, and is probably not needed in most cases, since it (seems to me) makes sense to use it at the start of a new phrase, or anywhere where the content is not dependent upon what came before. Whereas, most doc examples consists of a single, or even a partial, phrase. I certainly don't think it is necessary that all examples should use the same mode of note entry. It might be good to start revising examples where using \fixed organically makes more sense. A most useful approach (but probably prohibitively laborious way?) might be to add the ability to toggle the docs dynamically to show the example in either \relative or \fixed. > I was thinking more along the lines of (note this is NOT TESTED) > > > > phrase = { c f d g } > > > > \relative { \phrase \phrase \phrase } > > Yes, that's exactly the problem with putting \relative around > constructions rather than the variables themselves, illustrated > by "mover". Since \relative { } is an absolute construct, this is easily solved by: phrase = \relative c' { c f d g } \relative { \phrase \phrase \phrase } David Elaine Alt 415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is highly underrated*" ela...@flaminghakama.com skype: flaming_hakama Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Flaming Hakama by Elainewrites: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 7:57 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes: >> >> > Actually, I think it had to do with midi output for bass clarinet. The >> > sample I used was not transposed the octave, and I had to compensate by >> > transposing the music down. >> >> According to Wikipedia, bass clarinet is written in treble clef but >> played one octave lower than written (after subtracting the usual B♭ >> transposition). So, uh, I have no idea? > > Correct, I'd entered the music in the printed octave, > and wanted to hear it in the sounding octave. \transposition c should do the trick for Midi. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On 15/12/17 17:48, Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote: > > Actually, I think it had to do with midi output for bass > clarinet. The > > sample I used was not transposed the octave, and I had to > compensate by > > transposing the music down. > > According to Wikipedia, bass clarinet is written in treble clef but > played one octave lower than written (after subtracting the usual B♭ > transposition). So, uh, I have no idea? > > > > Correct, I'd entered the music in the printed octave, > and wanted to hear it in the sounding octave. > Which is actually why I always like \relative when entering music. I just alter the reference pitch up or down an octave to suit ... I gather \fixed would have the same effect - I might have to try changing to that because it would probably help avoid me getting stuff going all over the place - I do tend to enter all the notes before I compile and check it so a couple of missed commas or apostrophes results in ledger lines galore :-) If you want to print it with the treble rather than the treble_8 clef, I'd be inclined to enter it in the correct octave with \relative then \transpose it up the octave just for printing. Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 7:57 AM, David Kastrupwrote: > Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes: > > > David Kastrup writes: > > > >> Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes: > >> > >>> And the behavior of \relative that is weirdest: > >>> > >>> * The octave of \relative is lowered when used with bass clef. > >>> > >>> The fix for the clef issue is to use a \transpose when you use it > >>> with bass clef. > >> > >> That one is nonsense. \relative does not interact in any way with the > >> bass clef. > > > >> Best guess: choral music with tenor (injudiciously) written in \clef > >> "treble" rather than \clef "treble_8" confused your sense of octave. > > > > > > Actually, I think it had to do with midi output for bass clarinet. The > > sample I used was not transposed the octave, and I had to compensate by > > transposing the music down. > > According to Wikipedia, bass clarinet is written in treble clef but > played one octave lower than written (after subtracting the usual B♭ > transposition). So, uh, I have no idea? > > -- > David Kastrup > Correct, I'd entered the music in the printed octave, and wanted to hear it in the sounding octave. Elaine ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On Fri 15 Dec 2017 at 15:52:28 (+), Wols Lists wrote: > On 15/12/17 13:45, David Wright wrote: > > On Fri 15 Dec 2017 at 10:02:19 (+), Wols Lists wrote: > >> On 15/12/17 06:20, Saul Tobin wrote: > >>> Relative mode makes perfect sense if you're entering music that cares > >>> mainly about the relationship between notes within a phrase (i.e. most > >>> music). IMO absolute mode might be easier from the perspective of the > >>> software, but it's not how most musicians think, and that's > >>> important. Maybe the documentation could do a better job explaining the > >>> semantics of relative mode and when to use \resetRelativeOctave? > >>> > >>> I take exception to the idea that relative mode ought to be deprecated. > >>> I've been using exclusively relative mode to compose for almost ten > >>> years, and I think it's great. > >> > >> I think Han-Wen actually wrote \resetRelativeOctave for me :-) > >> > >> But if you don't understand relative then it will mess you up. > >> > >> Does anybody (not me :-) want to write a little update for the docu that > >> will make both relative mode and \resetRelativeOctave (hopefully) clear? > >> > >> It originated when I was (iirc) transcribing Chattanooga Choo-Choo, and > >> there's a repeated phrase, so I thought I'd define it as a variable. > >> OOOPPSS! The starting and ending notes are a fifth or more apart, and > >> the phrase repeats with nothing else in-between. The resulting staircase > >> was spectacular! > >> > >> If somebody would care to take that as hint for putting an example in > >> the docu, that's fine by me! :-) > > > > Just use \relative early. > > > I was thinking more along the lines of (note this is NOT TESTED) > > phrase = { c f d g } > > \relative { \phrase \phrase \phrase } Yes, that's exactly the problem with putting \relative around constructions rather than the variables themselves, illustrated by "mover". > \relative { \resetRelativeOctave \phrase \resetRelativeOctave \phrase > \resetRelativeOctave \phrase } Each \resetRelativeOctave needs a pitch to set the octave, but, yes, that is one way of dealing with the issue. A benefit is that you get the chance to modify the octavation at each repetition, but that benefit could also be achieved with \transpose c c' additions instead. But the solution shown by "stayer" is simpler and more elegant, and will also make any deliberate octavation changes more obvious in the source. Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Auto-transposition
> Hi List, > > I have used Lilypond for a few years now. I (almost) always use > \relative and I have never had trouble with it. Indeed, as a lay > person, I have no idea which octave > c'4 d' e' f' g'1 > is – I know I could look it up, but it is certainly not in my head. So what reference pitch do you put after \relative ? Or do you just do it by trial and error? Something like: when writing in treble clef, the first note should likely have a single apostrophe. Errors are obvious and trivial to fix (and therefore not distressing as all). Regards, Mogens ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Flaming Hakama by Elainewrites: > David Kastrup writes: > >> Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes: >> >>> And the behavior of \relative that is weirdest: >>> >>> * The octave of \relative is lowered when used with bass clef. >>> >>> The fix for the clef issue is to use a \transpose when you use it >>> with bass clef. >> >> That one is nonsense. \relative does not interact in any way with the >> bass clef. > >> Best guess: choral music with tenor (injudiciously) written in \clef >> "treble" rather than \clef "treble_8" confused your sense of octave. > > > Actually, I think it had to do with midi output for bass clarinet. The > sample I used was not transposed the octave, and I had to compensate by > transposing the music down. According to Wikipedia, bass clarinet is written in treble clef but played one octave lower than written (after subtracting the usual B♭ transposition). So, uh, I have no idea? -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On 15/12/17 13:45, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 15 Dec 2017 at 10:02:19 (+), Wols Lists wrote: >> On 15/12/17 06:20, Saul Tobin wrote: >>> Relative mode makes perfect sense if you're entering music that cares >>> mainly about the relationship between notes within a phrase (i.e. most >>> music). IMO absolute mode might be easier from the perspective of the >>> software, but it's not how most musicians think, and that's >>> important. Maybe the documentation could do a better job explaining the >>> semantics of relative mode and when to use \resetRelativeOctave? >>> >>> I take exception to the idea that relative mode ought to be deprecated. >>> I've been using exclusively relative mode to compose for almost ten >>> years, and I think it's great. >> >> I think Han-Wen actually wrote \resetRelativeOctave for me :-) >> >> But if you don't understand relative then it will mess you up. >> >> Does anybody (not me :-) want to write a little update for the docu that >> will make both relative mode and \resetRelativeOctave (hopefully) clear? >> >> It originated when I was (iirc) transcribing Chattanooga Choo-Choo, and >> there's a repeated phrase, so I thought I'd define it as a variable. >> OOOPPSS! The starting and ending notes are a fifth or more apart, and >> the phrase repeats with nothing else in-between. The resulting staircase >> was spectacular! >> >> If somebody would care to take that as hint for putting an example in >> the docu, that's fine by me! :-) > > Just use \relative early. > I was thinking more along the lines of (note this is NOT TESTED) phrase = { c f d g } \relative { \phrase \phrase \phrase } \relative { \resetRelativeOctave \phrase \resetRelativeOctave \phrase \resetRelativeOctave \phrase } Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On Dec 15, 2017 12:59 AM, "David Kastrup"wrote: David Kastrup writes: > Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes: > >> And the behavior of \relative that is weirdest: >> >> * The octave of \relative is lowered when used with bass clef. >> >> The fix for the clef issue is to use a \transpose when you use it with bass >> clef. > > That one is nonsense. \relative does not interact in any way with the > bass clef. Best guess: choral music with tenor (injudiciously) written in \clef "treble" rather than \clef "treble_8" confused your sense of octave. -- David Kastrup Actually, I think it had to do with midi output for bass clarinet. The sample I used was not transposed the octave, and I had to compensate by transposing the music down. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
writes: > Hi List, > > I have used Lilypond for a few years now. I (almost) always use > \relative and I have never had trouble with it. Indeed, as a lay > person, I have no idea which octave > c'4 d' e' f' g'1 > is – I know I could look it up, but it is certainly not in my head. So what reference pitch do you put after \relative ? Or do you just do it by trial and error? -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Kieren MacMillanwrites: > Hi all, > > Mats wrote: >> By the way, whoever is working on the Changes document for upcoming >> 2.20, don't forget to mention about \fixed! > > +1 2.19.22 apparently. I'd have pegged it at 2.18 already. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Auto-transposition
Hi List, I have used Lilypond for a few years now. I (almost) always use \relative and I have never had trouble with it. Indeed, as a lay person, I have no idea which octave c'4 d' e' f' g'1 is – I know I could look it up, but it is certainly not in my head. So for someone with little or no formal musical training, I think \relative is the best way to go – and I selfishly think that the documentation should be written for people such as me. Regards, Mogens From: Kieren MacMillan Sent: December 15, 2017 7:28 To: Lilypond-User Mailing List Cc: Mats Bengtsson Subject: Re: Auto-transposition Hi all, Mats wrote: > By the way, whoever is working on the Changes document for upcoming 2.20, > don't forget to mention about \fixed! +1 David W wrote: > Just use \relative early. The fact that this works like it does is further evidence that \relative is not sufficiently intuitive. I'm pretty sure if you asked 100 newbies — or even not-so-newbies — what the output of your code would be, there would be a significant subset (maybe even a majority?!) that wouldn't answer correctly. Saul wrote: > IMO absolute mode might be easier from the perspective of the software, but > it's not how most musicians think I disagree. In fact, I would offer that the situation is essentially the opposite of what you suggest: to wit, if I extract a line out of the middle of a relative block c4 d e f g1 and ask what pitches (including octave!) those are, no human musician can tell me (better than random chance), whereas software *can*. On the other hand, if I pull the same line out of the middle of an absolute block c'4 d' e' f' g'1 both human and software can get it (i.e., the octave) correct 100% of the time. > Maybe the documentation could do a better job explaining the semantics of > relative mode and when to use \resetRelativeOctave? That's definitely true. Gianmaria wrote: > I don't think there is a clear advantage to use relative vs absolute. I think there are clear advantages and disadvantages to both. The main problem I see is the insistence (implicit in the documentation) that relative mode is the best for newbies to start with, and the volume of list posts from newbies having problems with relative mode makes it clear that that is not true. Perhaps if the documentation were make crystal clear, with \resetRelativeOctave used in every example, etc., then I could feel comfortable backing down from my crusade to try to save newbies from the pitfalls we have [unintentionally] laid for them. Best, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Hi all, Mats wrote: > By the way, whoever is working on the Changes document for upcoming 2.20, > don't forget to mention about \fixed! +1 David W wrote: > Just use \relative early. The fact that this works like it does is further evidence that \relative is not sufficiently intuitive. I'm pretty sure if you asked 100 newbies — or even not-so-newbies — what the output of your code would be, there would be a significant subset (maybe even a majority?!) that wouldn't answer correctly. Saul wrote: > IMO absolute mode might be easier from the perspective of the software, but > it's not how most musicians think I disagree. In fact, I would offer that the situation is essentially the opposite of what you suggest: to wit, if I extract a line out of the middle of a relative block c4 d e f g1 and ask what pitches (including octave!) those are, no human musician can tell me (better than random chance), whereas software *can*. On the other hand, if I pull the same line out of the middle of an absolute block c'4 d' e' f' g'1 both human and software can get it (i.e., the octave) correct 100% of the time. > Maybe the documentation could do a better job explaining the semantics of > relative mode and when to use \resetRelativeOctave? That's definitely true. Gianmaria wrote: > I don't think there is a clear advantage to use relative vs absolute. I think there are clear advantages and disadvantages to both. The main problem I see is the insistence (implicit in the documentation) that relative mode is the best for newbies to start with, and the volume of list posts from newbies having problems with relative mode makes it clear that that is not true. Perhaps if the documentation were make crystal clear, with \resetRelativeOctave used in every example, etc., then I could feel comfortable backing down from my crusade to try to save newbies from the pitfalls we have [unintentionally] laid for them. Best, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Re: Auto-transposition
On 2017-12-15 13:30, Ralph Palmer wrote: Greetings - Just a reminder and note: I have been using \relative for years and have been quite happy with it. Perhaps my situation is fairly unique. I transcribe a lot of fiddle tunes, then transpose them down an octave and into alto clef. Using \relative is easier for me than using absolute pitches and \transpose, especially when I need to move an A part or B part up or down an octave because the fiddle tune won't all fit on the viola down an octave. My point being that I understand the arguments for absolute pitch entry and I prefer \relative pitch entry. I think there's room for both. All the best, Ralph Agreed! By the way, whoever is working on the Changes document for upcoming 2.20, don't forget to mention about \fixed! /Mats ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On Fri 15 Dec 2017 at 10:02:19 (+), Wols Lists wrote: > On 15/12/17 06:20, Saul Tobin wrote: > > Relative mode makes perfect sense if you're entering music that cares > > mainly about the relationship between notes within a phrase (i.e. most > > music). IMO absolute mode might be easier from the perspective of the > > software, but it's not how most musicians think, and that's > > important. Maybe the documentation could do a better job explaining the > > semantics of relative mode and when to use \resetRelativeOctave? > > > > I take exception to the idea that relative mode ought to be deprecated. > > I've been using exclusively relative mode to compose for almost ten > > years, and I think it's great. > > I think Han-Wen actually wrote \resetRelativeOctave for me :-) > > But if you don't understand relative then it will mess you up. > > Does anybody (not me :-) want to write a little update for the docu that > will make both relative mode and \resetRelativeOctave (hopefully) clear? > > It originated when I was (iirc) transcribing Chattanooga Choo-Choo, and > there's a repeated phrase, so I thought I'd define it as a variable. > OOOPPSS! The starting and ending notes are a fifth or more apart, and > the phrase repeats with nothing else in-between. The resulting staircase > was spectacular! > > If somebody would care to take that as hint for putting an example in > the docu, that's fine by me! :-) Just use \relative early. Cheers, David. mover = { c' c' d' e' f' g' a' a' } stayer = \relative { c' c d e f g a a } mresult = \relative { \mover\mover\mover\mover } sresult = \relative { \stayer\stayer\stayer\stayer } \mresult \sresult wot-u-dun.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Neo Andersonwrote: > Dear All, > > Anyway, I'm thankful you've taken your time to solve my problem. > > On Thursday, December 14, 2017, 1:29:22 AM GMT+1, Kieren MacMillan < > kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > > > Hi David, > > >> Because my only goal was to clarify for future readers of the list that > "manipulations on stuff" are not the only thing that can cause headaches. > > I failed to see how cut and paste differed from manipulations on stuff. > > > >> For future list-readers: Using absolute and fixed entry modes allows > you to avoid the issues/effort described by David. > > If people would only cease bringing any questions about \relative > > to the list, we'd be able to avoid this particular drum beat. > > Agreed. But I would offer that the reason people (esp. newbies) > continually bring questions about \relative to the list is because it's not > as intuitive and "idiot-proof" as our documentation would suggest — which > is precisely why I keep beating the drum, to try to keep people from making > the same decade-long mistake that I did (which was to use \relative, as > suggested/implied in the official documentation). > > Cheers, > Kieren. > Greetings - Just a reminder and note: I have been using \relative for years and have been quite happy with it. Perhaps my situation is fairly unique. I transcribe a lot of fiddle tunes, then transpose them down an octave and into alto clef. Using \relative is easier for me than using absolute pitches and \transpose, especially when I need to move an A part or B part up or down an octave because the fiddle tune won't all fit on the viola down an octave. My point being that I understand the arguments for absolute pitch entry and I prefer \relative pitch entry. I think there's room for both. All the best, Ralph -- Ralph Palmer Brattleboro, VT USA palmer.r.vio...@gmail.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On 15/12/17 06:20, Saul Tobin wrote: > Relative mode makes perfect sense if you're entering music that cares > mainly about the relationship between notes within a phrase (i.e. most > music). IMO absolute mode might be easier from the perspective of the > software, but it's not how most musicians think, and that's > important. Maybe the documentation could do a better job explaining the > semantics of relative mode and when to use \resetRelativeOctave? > > I take exception to the idea that relative mode ought to be deprecated. > I've been using exclusively relative mode to compose for almost ten > years, and I think it's great. I think Han-Wen actually wrote \resetRelativeOctave for me :-) But if you don't understand relative then it will mess you up. Does anybody (not me :-) want to write a little update for the docu that will make both relative mode and \resetRelativeOctave (hopefully) clear? It originated when I was (iirc) transcribing Chattanooga Choo-Choo, and there's a repeated phrase, so I thought I'd define it as a variable. OOOPPSS! The starting and ending notes are a fifth or more apart, and the phrase repeats with nothing else in-between. The resulting staircase was spectacular! If somebody would care to take that as hint for putting an example in the docu, that's fine by me! :-) Cheers, Wol ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
David Kastrupwrites: > Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes: > >> And the behavior of \relative that is weirdest: >> >> * The octave of \relative is lowered when used with bass clef. >> >> The fix for the clef issue is to use a \transpose when you use it with bass >> clef. > > That one is nonsense. \relative does not interact in any way with the > bass clef. Best guess: choral music with tenor (injudiciously) written in \clef "treble" rather than \clef "treble_8" confused your sense of octave. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Flaming Hakama by Elainewrites: > And the behavior of \relative that is weirdest: > > * The octave of \relative is lowered when used with bass clef. > > The fix for the clef issue is to use a \transpose when you use it with bass > clef. That one is nonsense. \relative does not interact in any way with the bass clef. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
From: Flaming Hakama by Elaine <ela...@flaminghakama.com> > Subject: Re: Auto-transposition It was pointed out to me that this claim is untrue: > And the behavior of \relative that is weirdest: > > * The octave of \relative is lowered when used with bass clef. > > The fix for the clef issue is to use a \transpose when you use it with > bass clef. > I think I was remembering an issue from some time ago which I probably misdiagnosed. Sorry for the noise. David Elaine Alt 415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is highly underrated*" ela...@flaminghakama.com skype: flaming_hakama Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On 15 December 2017 at 07:20, Saul Tobinwrote: > Reading your example, it seems to me that the "FAIL" is caused by the > hypothetical user misunderstanding the semantics of relative mode. Using > relative mode without explicitly defining what pitch the phrase is meant to > be relative to is unreadable and prone to break. If it were written > properly, it would be: > > \relative { > \resetRelativeOctave c' > c4 d e f g1 % a rising diatonic scale, starting on middle C > % if the next line is meant to start on the G above middle C, it should > have a new \resetRelativeOctave > g'4 f e d c1 % written relatively, this means we care about the melodic > leap upward from the previous note > % now I want to reuse the rising diatonic scale… so I cut and paste the > first two lines: >\resetRelativeOctave c' >c4 d e f g1 % a rising diatonic scale, starting on middle C — no > problem! > } > > Relative mode makes perfect sense if you're entering music that cares > mainly about the relationship between notes within a phrase (i.e. most > music). IMO absolute mode might be easier from the perspective of the > software, but it's not how most musicians think, and that's important. Maybe > the documentation could do a better job explaining the semantics of > relative mode and when to use \resetRelativeOctave? > > I take exception to the idea that relative mode ought to be deprecated. > I've been using exclusively relative mode to compose for almost ten years, > and I think it's great. > In short: I don't think there is a clear advantage to use relative vs absolute. I say this because of my (small) lilypond experience (I started with relative and now I only use absolute) and more important, because I periodically see this type of thread on this mailing list. But please correct me if my previous sentence is not true. Like other people I stopped using relative mode after having more harm than good. Using "fixed" all started working always, it is more clear and honestly I don't have the impression you have to write/work more. I especially think that for novice user this should be the suggested way to work: at beginning you have a lot of problem to make things working. Even if you could make errors in both absolute and relative mode, with absolute also a beginner is immediately able to see where is the problem and to fix it. With relative I remember getting frustrated wasting a lot of time trying to understand where was the problem, fixing it and discover I was creating another problem in another part of the music. Now to be more clear: - it is sure when I start using lilypond I didn't use relative correctly (at that time didn't know \resetRelativeOctave) and - I probably don't write that much music so that maybe I'm not the best user to say what's the best mode. But this is the standard beginning for everybody. So adding even more complexity for something that maybe (maybe) give you some advantages in future I don't think it's a good choice. And yes, I'm not a lilypond expert but I'm an excellent novice :) with a lot of problem. For this reason I think the manual should: - avoid to suggest using relative - avoid to show the majority of examples using relative (for the large majority of examples it is really not need any fixed/relative) I'm sure there are other people like you Saul that can have great advantage using \relative. But because (to me) it is not that clear if it is generally advantageous and because (to me) it is more complex I don't think it should be the suggested way to go. This is just my two cents. g. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Reading your example, it seems to me that the "FAIL" is caused by the hypothetical user misunderstanding the semantics of relative mode. Using relative mode without explicitly defining what pitch the phrase is meant to be relative to is unreadable and prone to break. If it were written properly, it would be: \relative { \resetRelativeOctave c' c4 d e f g1 % a rising diatonic scale, starting on middle C % if the next line is meant to start on the G above middle C, it should have a new \resetRelativeOctave g'4 f e d c1 % written relatively, this means we care about the melodic leap upward from the previous note % now I want to reuse the rising diatonic scale… so I cut and paste the first two lines: \resetRelativeOctave c' c4 d e f g1 % a rising diatonic scale, starting on middle C — no problem! } Relative mode makes perfect sense if you're entering music that cares mainly about the relationship between notes within a phrase (i.e. most music). IMO absolute mode might be easier from the perspective of the software, but it's not how most musicians think, and that's important. Maybe the documentation could do a better job explaining the semantics of relative mode and when to use \resetRelativeOctave? I take exception to the idea that relative mode ought to be deprecated. I've been using exclusively relative mode to compose for almost ten years, and I think it's great. On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Kieren MacMillan < kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Hi David, > > >> Because my only goal was to clarify for future readers of the list that > "manipulations on stuff" are not the only thing that can cause headaches. > > I failed to see how cut and paste differed from manipulations on stuff. > > I think of "manipulations on stuff" as being > > foo = { stuff } > ... > \transpose c d \foo > \foo \foo \foo > etc. > > Cut and paste on the other hand, is this: > > \relative { > c'4 d e f g1 % a rising diatonic scale, starting on middle C > g'4 f e d c1 % a falling diatonic scale, starting on the G a 12th above > middle C > % now I want to reuse the rising diatonic scale… so I cut and paste the > first line: > c'4 d e f g1 % a rising diatonic scale, starting on middle C <-- FAIL! > } > > >> For future list-readers: Using absolute and fixed entry modes allows > you to avoid the issues/effort described by David. > > If people would only cease bringing any questions about \relative > > to the list, we'd be able to avoid this particular drum beat. > > Agreed. But I would offer that the reason people (esp. newbies) > continually bring questions about \relative to the list is because it's not > as intuitive and "idiot-proof" as our documentation would suggest — which > is precisely why I keep beating the drum, to try to keep people from making > the same decade-long mistake that I did (which was to use \relative, as > suggested/implied in the official documentation). > > Cheers, > Kieren. > > > > Kieren MacMillan, composer > ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info > ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info > > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user > ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
> -- Forwarded message -- > From: Neo Anderson <sebulb...@yahoo.com> > To: Lilypond-User Mailing List <lilypond-user@gnu.org> > Subject: Re: Auto-transposition > ... > >> For future list-readers: Using absolute and fixed entry modes allows > you to avoid the issues/effort described by David. > > If people would only cease bringing any questions about \relative > > to the list, we'd be able to avoid this particular drum beat. > > Agreed. But I would offer that the reason people (esp. newbies) > continually bring questions about \relative to the list is because it's not > as intuitive and "idiot-proof" as our documentation would suggest — which > is precisely why I keep beating the drum, to try to keep people from making > the same decade-long mistake that I did (which was to use \relative, as > suggested/implied in the official documentation). > > Cheers, > Kieren. > I haven't found any problems with \relative that can't be solved by using another \relative. Except the clef issue. Using \fixed to solve or avoid these issues is no less work than using additional \relative's, and arguably has some down sides: * needing more ,,, and '''--or needing more \fixed with different reference octaves to avoid that typing * making you think in terms of absolute octaves (not something most musicians are familiar with) * a single octave mistake in fixed mode will not be as visible, and will not be as easy to find In terms of this ongoing discussion, I think it will be most helpful to be clear about what these common problems with \relative are. Here are the ones I've encountered: * volta alternatives: the octave of the 2nd ending is based on the previous printed note (the last note of the 1st ending), and and not the previous musical note (the last note of the common section) * tags: including or excluding tags that change octaves will change the octave of what follows * changing the last note of one phrase may affect the octave of the subsequent phrase So, my suggestion is when you find yourself using volta alternatives, tags, or long pieces, just get in the habit of wrapping each one in a new \relative. Does anyone have any other circumstances where \relative is problematic? And the behavior of \relative that is weirdest: * The octave of \relative is lowered when used with bass clef. The fix for the clef issue is to use a \transpose when you use it with bass clef. HTH, David Elaine Alt 415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is highly underrated*" ela...@flaminghakama.com skype: flaming_hakama Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Hi, > it's really hard to "cease bringing any questions about \relative to the > list" if one of the very the first > things you learn about Lilypond is \relative mode - it certainly was mine > experience with all the official > documentation. I agree 100%. Don't worry about your question(s) — I think David is just frustrated with the fact that I regularly warn newbies away from using relative mode (because of exactly the type of problems you ran into). Best wishes, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Hi David, >> Because my only goal was to clarify for future readers of the list that >> "manipulations on stuff" are not the only thing that can cause headaches. > I failed to see how cut and paste differed from manipulations on stuff. I think of "manipulations on stuff" as being foo = { stuff } ... \transpose c d \foo \foo \foo \foo etc. Cut and paste on the other hand, is this: \relative { c'4 d e f g1 % a rising diatonic scale, starting on middle C g'4 f e d c1 % a falling diatonic scale, starting on the G a 12th above middle C % now I want to reuse the rising diatonic scale… so I cut and paste the first line: c'4 d e f g1 % a rising diatonic scale, starting on middle C <-- FAIL! } >> For future list-readers: Using absolute and fixed entry modes allows you to >> avoid the issues/effort described by David. > If people would only cease bringing any questions about \relative > to the list, we'd be able to avoid this particular drum beat. Agreed. But I would offer that the reason people (esp. newbies) continually bring questions about \relative to the list is because it's not as intuitive and "idiot-proof" as our documentation would suggest — which is precisely why I keep beating the drum, to try to keep people from making the same decade-long mistake that I did (which was to use \relative, as suggested/implied in the official documentation). Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On Wed 13 Dec 2017 at 15:15:14 (-0500), Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi David, > > >> … and if you don't take extra care when simply cutting and pasting, etc. > >> etc. etc. > > > > Yes, so I'm not sure why you cut the helpful lines above the ones > > you quoted from my post (that were not my words, however). > > Because my only goal was to clarify for future readers of the list that > "manipulations on stuff" are not the only thing that can cause headaches. I failed to see how cut and paste differed from manipulations on stuff. > > … so before employing a cut and paste approach, it might be wise to > > convert the source to absolute. (Some composers disagree.) It just > > depends on your approach, as every cut involves checking the note > > following the cut, and every paste involves checking up to two > > notes. This could be trivial, or it could be a showstopper. > > Correct. > > For future list-readers: Using absolute and fixed entry modes allows you to > avoid the issues/effort described by David. If people would only cease bringing any questions about \relative to the list, we'd be able to avoid this particular drum beat. Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Hi David, >> … and if you don't take extra care when simply cutting and pasting, etc. >> etc. etc. > > Yes, so I'm not sure why you cut the helpful lines above the ones > you quoted from my post (that were not my words, however). Because my only goal was to clarify for future readers of the list that "manipulations on stuff" are not the only thing that can cause headaches. > … so before employing a cut and paste approach, it might be wise to > convert the source to absolute. (Some composers disagree.) It just > depends on your approach, as every cut involves checking the note > following the cut, and every paste involves checking up to two > notes. This could be trivial, or it could be a showstopper. Correct. For future list-readers: Using absolute and fixed entry modes allows you to avoid the issues/effort described by David. Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On Wed 13 Dec 2017 at 12:06:24 (-0500), Kieren MacMillan wrote: > Hi all, > > > Kieran is correct relative pitch entry can cause headaches > > if you start doing manipulations on stuff. > > … and if you don't take extra care when simply cutting and pasting, etc. etc. > etc. Yes, so I'm not sure why you cut the helpful lines above the ones you quoted from my post (that were not my words, however). The lines were: ✂ ✂ ✂ On Tue 12 Dec 2017 at 22:00:47 (-0500), Shane Brandes wrote: > Frescobaldi has a neat little tool to convert from relative to absolute pitch. … and AIUI the same tool is available as a standalone in ly, aka python-ly/python3-ly/…. ✂ ✂ ✂ … so before employing a cut and paste approach, it might be wise to convert the source to absolute. (Some composers disagree.) It just depends on your approach, as every cut involves checking the note following the cut, and every paste involves checking up to two notes. This could be trivial, or it could be a showstopper. Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Hi all, > Kieran is correct relative pitch entry can cause headaches > if you start doing manipulations on stuff. … and if you don't take extra care when simply cutting and pasting, etc. etc. etc. Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On 12/13/2017 11:54 AM, David Wright wrote: I prefer relative as a pitch entry for ease and speed. Kieran is correct relative pitch entry can cause headaches if you start doing manipulations on stuff. Agreed; if definitions like *foo = \relative { stuff in notemode ... } * are used, then \foo can be used in complicated constructions in safety, because its contents are absolute. This is what I have found to be most convenient too, and I tend to do this in almost every score...so far, haven't had any major issues. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On Tue 12 Dec 2017 at 22:00:47 (-0500), Shane Brandes wrote: > Frescobaldi has a neat little tool to convert from relative to absolute pitch. … and AIUI the same tool is available as a standalone in ly, aka python-ly/python3-ly/…. > I prefer relative as a pitch entry for ease and speed. > Kieran is correct relative pitch entry can cause headaches if you > start doing manipulations on stuff. Agreed; if definitions like foo = \relative { stuff in notemode ... } are used, then \foo can be used in complicated constructions in safety, because its contents are absolute. Putting \relative { } around \score or tagged constructions containing non-absolute pitches is a recipe for obfuscation. That's a criticism of the coder, not of LP's syntax. Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Frescobaldi has a neat little tool to convert from relative to absolute pitch. I prefer relative as a pitch entry for ease and speed. Kieran is correct relative pitch entry can cause headaches if you start doing manipulations on stuff. regards, Shane On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 5:48 PM, David Wrightwrote: > On Tue 12 Dec 2017 at 20:32:34 (+0100), Simon Albrecht wrote: >> On 12.12.2017 20:30, Shevek wrote: >> >The alternative is to use \relative {} but to use \resetRelativeOctave >> >religiously before every phrase, even the first one in a block. I find that >> >more natural for composing, personally. >> >> I find that this has the disadvantage of not checking the notes >> immediately preceding it for octave displacements. > > Well, nothing checks every note except checking every note. > > But for a composer in the heat of inspiration (!), > \resetRelativeOctave might allow one to work on a later > section even though previous sections have not yet been > fully corrected for octavation. > > Cheers, > David. > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On Tue 12 Dec 2017 at 20:32:34 (+0100), Simon Albrecht wrote: > On 12.12.2017 20:30, Shevek wrote: > >The alternative is to use \relative {} but to use \resetRelativeOctave > >religiously before every phrase, even the first one in a block. I find that > >more natural for composing, personally. > > I find that this has the disadvantage of not checking the notes > immediately preceding it for octave displacements. Well, nothing checks every note except checking every note. But for a composer in the heat of inspiration (!), \resetRelativeOctave might allow one to work on a later section even though previous sections have not yet been fully corrected for octavation. Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On 12.12.2017 20:30, Shevek wrote: The alternative is to use \relative {} but to use \resetRelativeOctave religiously before every phrase, even the first one in a block. I find that more natural for composing, personally. I find that this has the disadvantage of not checking the notes immediately preceding it for octave displacements. Best, Simon ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
> But as a user of Lilypond for over fifteen years, I *will* recommend that you consider avoiding relative entry mode — using absolute mode (and, when appropriate, \fixed) will like save you headaches (like the one you're encountering right now) in both the short and long term. The alternative is to use \relative {} but to use \resetRelativeOctave religiously before every phrase, even the first one in a block. I find that more natural for composing, personally. -- Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Hi Neo, > I'm new to Lilypond, coming over from a commercial program. Welcome! > The issue: > I seem to get measures auto-transposed one by one. > I have one bar of music, then the second one gets transposed one octave > higher, the next one even one octave higher, and so on. > > Without /relative command, the x5 chords get messed up.I use variables but I > get the same issue without them too. > Minimal example auto-transpose-minimal.ly I can't access your file for some reason…? But as a user of Lilypond for over fifteen years, I *will* recommend that you consider avoiding relative entry mode — using absolute mode (and, when appropriate, \fixed) will like save you headaches (like the one you're encountering right now) in both the short and long term. Hope this helps! Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
On Sun 10 Dec 2017 at 20:37:03 (+), Neo Anderson wrote: > Hi, > I'm new to Lilypond, coming over from a commercial program. Please, bear with > me as I'm still learning. > The issue: > I seem to get measures auto-transposed one by one. > I have one bar of music, then the second one gets transposed one octave > higher, the next one even one octave higher, and so on. > > Without /relative command, the x5 chords get messed up.I use variables but I > get the same issue without them too. > Minimal example auto-transpose-minimal.ly If you write hita = \relative c { … … … } then \hita will always yield the same notes. The \relative construction produces an absolute expression. Never use \relative { } round the structure that describes your score because any change you make will change the pitch relationship between the last note of one variable and the first of the next. LP can manage it, as you have just shown, but our brains can't keep track. Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Auto-transposition
Neo Andersonwrites: > I'm new to Lilypond, coming over from a commercial program. > Please, bear with me as I'm still learning. > > The issue: > > I seem to get measures auto-transposed one by one. I have one bar of > music, then the second one gets transposed one octave higher, the next > one even one octave higher, and so on. If you don't know what \relative does, you should look it up or don't use it. > Without /relative command, the x5 chords get messed up. I have no idea what you mean by that. > I use variables but I get the same issue without them too. But you might understand more easily what happens when replacing the variable references with the contained code. You probably want to define your variables using myname = \absolute { ... } so that they don't become part of a surrounding \relative phrase. > Minimal example > auto-transpose-minimal.ly > > >* auto-transpose-minimal.ly > > Shared with Dropbox > * > > BTW, is it OK to link a minimal example or other LY files via Dropbox? No. We archive our mailing list discussions and such files will then simply become inaccessible. Dropbox may be appropriate for PDF files or humongous problem sources which won't be really needed for understanding the answers (if they are written well). But minimal examples should be included in the mails to the list so that they are around for people reading through the archives so that they can follow the corresponding answers. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Auto-transposition
Hi, I'm new to Lilypond, coming over from a commercial program. Please, bear with me as I'm still learning. The issue: I seem to get measures auto-transposed one by one. I have one bar of music, then the second one gets transposed one octave higher, the next one even one octave higher, and so on. Without /relative command, the x5 chords get messed up.I use variables but I get the same issue without them too. Minimal example auto-transpose-minimal.ly | | | | | | | | | | | auto-transpose-minimal.ly Shared with Dropbox | | | BTW, is it OK to link a minimal example or other LY files via Dropbox? Cheers, S. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user