"Fairchild" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tell me more please. Just what does your editor do?
Let's suppose that the line before where the cursor stands shows (with
absolute octaves):
g'4. a'8
If I press the 'd' key on my keyboard, the line becomes:
g'4. a'8 d''8
There is two '' after
, not much to talk about. However,
look at the left hand:
\relative c' {
[...]
f,,16 ( c'' a c d, c' )
[...]
}
would become:
\absolute {
[...]
f,16( c' a c' d c') [...]
}
Now you can see that the three c' are the same in one look,
like when you read printe
I guess its partly a matter of what you use Lilypond for. If you are
basically encoding music that has already been written then It may well
be easiest to use relative entry. However I have a large number of
lilypond scores that are "works in progress" - pieces I am writing.
These are revised/edite
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use relative mode only. I think I use it in some form
of 'obsolete' mode, and as long as it works this way,
I'd rather stick to it. I'd hate to enter pitches explictly.
I don't do that. My editor does.
Ok, but to me, it's not only a matter of entry. It is also
Nicolas Sceaux wrote:
> We could use the LilyPond compiler to read a (part of a) file, make
> some transformation (relative->absolute, transposition) and then
> output the result. That would require to define functions that can
> print music expressions. For most common tasks, only notes/skips/res
> > I use relative mode only. I think I use it in some form
> > of 'obsolete' mode, and as long as it works this way,
> > I'd rather stick to it. I'd hate to enter pitches explictly.
>
> I don't do that. My editor does.
Ok, but to me, it's not only a matter of entry. It is also
a matter of readab
Tell me more please. Just what does your editor do?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Nicolas Sceaux
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 12:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Lilypond user
Subject: Re: Solfeggio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Quot
I generously use relative blocks for the same reason.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Nicolas Sceaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
dax2 wrote:
I don't know how many problem other writers encount with "\relative c'"
but I am interested to hear. I have completely abandoned it in favour
of true pitc
Quoting Nicolas Sceaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > dax2 wrote:
>
> >> I don't know how many problem other writers encount with "\relative c'"
> >> but I am interested to hear. I have completely abandoned it in favour
> >> of true pitch.
>
> I use absolute octaves and (make my editor) enter all dur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Quoting Nicolas Sceaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> > dax2 wrote:
>>
>> >> I don't know how many problem other writers encount with "\relative c'"
>> >> but I am interested to hear. I have completely abandoned it in favour
>> >> of true pitch.
>>
>> I use absolute octav
es copy-and-paste more reliable.
Bernard Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can see that a solfeggio notation might be useful. as for you remarks
> on relative pitch information. Some people may find it easier to enter
> the pitches in this way but it makes the score almost im
I can see that a solfeggio notation might be useful. as for you remarks
on relative pitch information. Some people may find it easier to enter
the pitches in this way but it makes the score almost impossible to edit
afterwards. NoteEdit exports lilypond scores in this format and the
first thing I
12 matches
Mail list logo
