Graham- I think on this side of the pond that key is as close as you'll come
I just read the section through and it makes perfect sense to me and I use transpose etc frequently Yours- Jay Jay Hamilton www.soundand.com 206-328-7694 --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lilypond-user@gnu.org Subject: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 62, Issue 105 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:43:17 -0500 Send lilypond-user mailing list submissions to lilypond-user@gnu.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of lilypond-user digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re:GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches vastly improved, more comments sought (Mats Bengtsson) 2. Re:GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches vastly improved, more comments sought (Graham Percival) 3. Re:GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches vastly improved, more comments sought (Mats Bengtsson) 4. Re:Lyrics having characters with accents (Mats Bengtsson) 5. Re:Fonts used for tablature (Mats Bengtsson) 6. Re:Different tempos (Kieren MacMillan) 7. Re:timidity plays back music an octave higher than scored (Eric Patton) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:24:22 +0100 From: Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches vastly improved, more comments sought To: Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: lilypond-user Mailinglist <lilypond-user@gnu.org> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Graham Percival wrote: > Some sections have been completely rewritten (particularly Octave > check). Please read the new Pitches section and send comments. > - The text in "Octave corrections and checks" is contradictory. First it says that "an octave check does not change the pitch", then it says in the description of octave checks that "If this is not the case, ... and the octave is corrected". As far as I can see, the true difference between the two commands is that the octave correction is specified as a attribute to the note itself in the input, whereas the octave check is a separate "command" to be inserted between notes in the input. Both have the same effect of correcting the octave (not the pitch, right?) if it's wrong. - In "Transpose", I wonder if the second example is correct or if it should have an es major key signature (in the printed output, i.e. a \key c \major in the input file), according to normal notation conventions. Since I don't play any transposing instrument myself, I'm not sure which one is correct. Technically, this second example illustrates a "feature", namely that if you don't explicitly specify a key signature, then the transposed music won't have any key signature either, in contrast to what happens if you explicitly specify a key signature. - The transposing-pitches-with-minimum-accidentals-smart-transpose.ly LSR example, included in "Transpose" didn't work, since the internal representation for alterations has changed between 2.10 and 2.11. I have just tried to submit a 2.11 version to LSR, but since it doesn't compile in 2.10, I'm not sure it was accepted in the LSR database. I'll send it by email otherwise. - Instrument transpositions, first sentence: I'm not sure it's the "key" of the transposing instrument that should be specified, but I don't know the proper terminology. > - Instrument transpositions, first sentence: I'm not sure it's the > "key" of the transposing > instrument that should be specified, but I don't know the proper > terminology. I'm not totally certain, but I think that "key" is the correct term. Anybody? _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user