+1 to Keith's idea.
In fact, I remember first learning about \relative and being *amazed* that
it didn't work as described.
I'm mostly transcribing/re-engraving for solo violin, and most pieces stay
within a small 2-octave range. The \relative c'''{ ...} syntax was exactly
what I wanted.
Steve
That is indeed a clever way of manipulating the absolute mode good for
some things, but not terribly handy once you get into active keyboard
music as you would end up thinking like a drifting organ tuner.
Shane
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Keith OHara wrote:
> Federico Bruni gmail.com> writ
Federico Bruni gmail.com> writes:
> 2015-04-23 9:21 GMT+02:00 Martin Tarenskeen zonnet.nl>:
>
> I often use LilyPond to quickly enter a very simple tune or small
pianosheet needing just a simple texteditor (Vim). I use \relative all the
time. c g c e g is soo much faster and easier than c'''
Am 27.04.2015 um 10:35 schrieb ArnoldTheresius:
Hello Urs
Urs Liska wrote
...
Another important topic for commercial users may be the management
of the source code for all PDFs (and other output).
What do you mean here?
And finally multiple people may have to working parallel on the same
Hello Urs
Urs Liska wrote
> ...
>>
>> Another important topic for commercial users may be the management
>> of the source code for all PDFs (and other output).
>
> What do you mean here?
>
>> And finally multiple people may have to working parallel on the same
>> score.
>
> This is something th
2015-04-25 19:17 GMT+02:00 Martin Tarenskeen :
> It should be mentioned that Frescobaldi creates converts
>
> {c'' d'' e'' f'' g''}
>
> to "old style" \relative syntax like:
>
> \relative c'' {c d e f g}
>
> instead of the new syntax I like to use these days:
>
> \relative
> Il 26/04/15 09.58, Johan Vromans ha scritto:
>> I've always considered \relative as an operation that should be
>> applied as
>> close to the actual notes as possible. This gives the least suprises, if
>> any.
>>
>>\relative c'' {
>> \new PianoStaff <<
>>\new Staff { \time 2/4 c4
On 2015-04-26 15:13, Simon Albrecht wrote:
If this is so easy for frescobaldi to have this converter
relative2absolute, and so usefull to have input files in absolute, why
not implant
(implement)
a commandline option to lily that would convert the
relative blocks founds to absolute?
Lilypo
it looks like you shortened \transpose not \relative but i like it "I may
use it" thanks
Stephen
octave =
#(define-music-function
(parser location octaves music)
(integer? ly:music?)
(_i "Raise or lower @var{music} by a nubmer of @var{octaves}.")
(make-music 'TransposedMusic
'element (ly:m
Am 26.04.2015 um 14:37 schrieb Ali Cuota:
Hello,
If this is so easy for frescobaldi to have this converter
relative2absolute, and so usefull to have input files in absolute, why
not implant
(implement)
a commandline option to lily that would convert the
relative blocks founds to absolute?
L
Hello,
If this is so easy for frescobaldi to have this converter
relative2absolute, and so usefull to have input files in absolute, why
not implant a commandline option to lily that would convert the
relatibe blocks founds to absolute?
Francois
2015-04-26 5:12 GMT-05:00, Gilles :
> On Sun, 26 Ap
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 09:58:33 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 05:52:04 + (UTC)
Keith OHara wrote:
I wish the manual did not use the implicit \relative c'' {}
(sometimes \relative c' {} ) enclosing the examples. As soon as
the input gets complicated, \relative becomes diffic
Dear Johan,
Il 26/04/15 09.58, Johan Vromans ha scritto:
I've always considered \relative as an operation that should be applied as
close to the actual notes as possible. This gives the least suprises, if
any.
\relative c'' {
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff { \time 2/4 c4 e | g g,
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 05:52:04 + (UTC)
Keith OHara wrote:
> I wish the manual did not use the implicit \relative c'' {}
> (sometimes \relative c' {} ) enclosing the examples. As soon as
> the input gets complicated, \relative becomes difficult to figure out.
I've always considered \relative
Martin Tarenskeen zonnet.nl> writes:
> I often use LilyPond to quickly enter a very simple tune or
> small pianosheet needing just a simple texteditor (Vim). I use \relative
> all the time. c g c e g is soo much faster and easier than c''' g''
> c''' e''' g''' g'''.
If there were a version of
Thanks, just found it. I will consider it for my future works.
Francois
2015-04-25 13:08 GMT-05:00, Noeck :
> Hi,
>
> I didn't want to enter the absolute/relative discussion, but
> now I have to add one advantage when entering notes in the relative mode:
> In case of a wrong , or ' (or missing) a
Hi,
I didn't want to enter the absolute/relative discussion, but
now I have to add one advantage when entering notes in the relative mode:
In case of a wrong , or ' (or missing) all following notes are in the
wrong octave and I am more likely to spot the error.
Cheers,
Joram
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, Ali Cuota wrote:
Hello,
solution is in the editors functionalities. If, let say Frescobaldi,
would offer a preprocessor to translate a block from relative to
absolute, this would be done. Relative is easy to write, absolute easy
to read, so why choose? Both is better.
urday, April 25, 2015 4:12:20 PM
> Subject: Re: What is the problem with "\relative"? (Was: Do we really offer
> the future?)
>
> Hello,
>
> I am only a user and very thankfull, both for ly and for relative. I
> would have had really thought much longer about ly i
Hello,
I am only a user and very thankfull, both for ly and for relative. I
would have had really thought much longer about ly if relative had not
be available. Now, I understand the pro of absolute, and I think the
solution is in the editors functionalities. If, let say Frescobaldi,
would offer a
Am 25.04.2015 um 00:38 schrieb Thomas Morley:
Hi all,
I'm a little late to the party...
One very annoying thing about \relative is when you want to use
music-functions catching some music doing something with it.
Here the less complex function I could think of, returning different
results for
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 00:38:02 +0200
Thomas Morley wrote:
> repeat-note =
> #(define-music-function (parser location music)(ly:music?)
> (make-sequential-music (list music (ly:music-deep-copy music
>
> \absolute { c'1 \repeat-note c'' }
> \relative c' { c \repeat-note c'1 }
So?
\repeat-not
Hi Harm,
> One very annoying thing about \relative is when you want to use
> music-functions catching some music doing something with it.
> Here the less complex function I could think of, returning different
> results for absolute and relative.
Yes — another good reason I avoid \relative mode.
2015-04-23 3:41 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan :
> Hi Gilles,
>
>>> deprecate \relative, which I now avoid like the plague.
>> Why?
>
> 1. It doesn’t play well with reuse: both trivial reuse (i.e., cut-and-paste)
> and more advanced (i.e., referenced in variables) require extra care at the
> very lea
Am 24.04.2015 um 00:58 schrieb Wols Lists:
And then in English we get thoroughly confused, because an American
whole note is an English semibreve or, literally, "half note". And we
don't use numbers either, we have semibreve, minim, crotchet, quaver,
semiquaver, demisemiquaver, hemidemisemiquaver
On 23/04/15 20:35, Calixte Faure wrote:
> I learned music in French (native French) and was at the beginning a
> little bit confused with 2 4 8 16 etc. because we say white, black,
> "hooked", double-"hooked", triple-, etc. but after all it is logical
> with the numbers.
> I understood the choice
- Original Message -
> From: "Calixte Faure"
> To: "Noeck"
> Cc: "LilyPond Users"
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:35:18 PM
> Subject: Re: What is the problem with "\relative"? (Was: Do we really offer
> the future?)
>
Calixte Faure wrote:
I learned music in French (native French) and was at the beginning a little
bit confused with 2 4 8 16 etc. because we say white, black, "hooked",
double-"hooked", triple-, etc. .
At least you weren't trapped in hemi-demi-semi-quavers!
- Pete
___
I learned music in French (native French) and was at the beginning a little
bit confused with 2 4 8 16 etc. because we say white, black, "hooked",
double-"hooked", triple-, etc. but after all it is logical with the
numbers.
I understood the choice of 2 4 8 16 during an exchange semester in Germany
Hi Joram,
> c' etc. is just the natural way of calling the notes in
> Dutch, German and many northern and eastern European languages
> So here in Germany it is an advantage when teaching LilyPond to newcomes:
> You write the notes just by their name: d' fis' a' d'' – as easy as that.
Interesting.
Hi Simon,
> – I think the preference one will take also depends on musical style: a piece
> of renaissance vocal music uses so few leaps greater than a fourth that the
> advantage of relative in typing is huge and it’s ‘error-pronity’ small. On
> the other extreme, a piano piece by George Crumb
>> c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 f5 e5 d5 c5
>
> All other things being equal, that *would* have been great.
That would save typing in some cases and would follow American and other
conventions. But c' etc. is just the natural way of calling the notes in
Dutch, German and many northern and eastern European
On 23.04.2015 (19:40), Richard Shann wrote:
> Well, if you set up that mapping for Denemo you could get LilyPond's
> beautiful typesetting too :)
The last time I tried, it wasn't possible in denemo, I think because the
keyboard shortcuts were tied to specific octaves, or something like that.
I've
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 19:36 +0200, Eyolf Østrem wrote:
>
>
> On 23.04.2015 (10:04), H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
> > Besides, only powers of 2 are valid for durations, which wastes all the
> > other numbers in between. Unfortunately I don't have a good idea on how
> > to write durations without using dig
Two small thoughts also from me:
– I think the preference one will take also depends on musical style: a
piece of renaissance vocal music uses so few leaps greater than a fourth
that the advantage of relative in typing is huge and it’s
‘error-pronity’ small. On the other extreme, a piano piece
On 23.04.2015 (10:04), H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Besides, only powers of 2 are valid for durations, which wastes all the
> other numbers in between. Unfortunately I don't have a good idea on how
> to write durations without using digits either.
I started on a vim script to remap the keyboard as foll
Hi,
> It makes me think that it was a wrong design decision in lilypond to use
> ' and , for octave indications and digits 1, 2, 4, 8, ... for durations.
> If we had used digits for octave designations instead, absolute mode
> would be much less painful to write, e.g.:
>
> c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 f5
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 03:35:59PM +0200, Federico Bruni wrote:
> Hi Kieren
>
> 2015-04-23 14:40 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan :
>
> > > personally I find lilypond code in \relative mode easier to read.
> >
> > Really? I look at
> >
> > \relative c,, { c4 g' a b e f' g' a, b,, c’ }
> >
> > and I
Am 23.04.2015 um 16:13 schrieb ArnoldTheresius:
Federico Bruni wrote
...
personally I find lilypond code in \relative mode easier to read.
Perhaps, it's only a problem because the editors we use are not able
to translate automatically between relative and absolute octave notation.
Well, bac
Hi Federico,
> I see the first as less cluttered than the second (and another example of
> music can appear much more cluttered than above example).
I see the second as containing more information encoded directly in the input,
and requiring less to be added by the user.
> I don't like trying
Federico Bruni wrote
> ...
>> > personally I find lilypond code in \relative mode easier to read.
Perhaps, it's only a problem because the editors we use are not able
to translate automatically between relative and absolute octave notation.
Well, back to the original question, what may profession
Hi Kieren
2015-04-23 14:40 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan :
> > personally I find lilypond code in \relative mode easier to read.
>
> Really? I look at
>
> \relative c,, { c4 g' a b e f' g' a, b,, c’ }
>
> and I can’t immediately tell which octave the last c is in. Looking at
>
> c,,4 g,, a,,
Hi Martin,
> personally I find lilypond code in \relative mode easier to read.
Really? I look at
\relative c,, { c4 g' a b e f' g' a, b,, c’ }
and I can’t immediately tell which octave the last c is in. Looking at
c,,4 g,, a,, b,, e, f g' a b,, c
it’s perfectly clear right away.
Chee
Hi Federico,
> If you structure your files in a way that causes relative mode to produce
> side-effects, you can still enter in relative mode and then convert in
> absolute mode when you've finished (Frescobaldi can do it).
I find it just as easy to enter code in absolute mode, so why should I
2015-04-23 9:21 GMT+02:00 Martin Tarenskeen :
>
> I often use LilyPond to quickly enter a very simple tune or small
> pianosheet needing just a simple texteditor (Vim). I use \relative all the
> time. c g c e g is soo much faster and easier than c''' g'' c''' e''' g'''
> g'''.
>
> And personally I
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Hwaen Ch'uqi wrote:
Greetings,
The reasons for one not using relative mode are clear, but it hardly
justifies calling for its deprecation. As a composer of primarily
piano music, it is an absolute lifesaver. And all to whom I have
introduced LilyPond, primarily pianists o
Greetings,
The reasons for one not using relative mode are clear, but it hardly
justifies calling for its deprecation. As a composer of primarily
piano music, it is an absolute lifesaver. And all to whom I have
introduced LilyPond, primarily pianists or harpists, immediately
gravitated to relative
Hi Gilles,
>> deprecate \relative, which I now avoid like the plague.
> Why?
1. It doesn’t play well with reuse: both trivial reuse (i.e., cut-and-paste)
and more advanced (i.e., referenced in variables) require extra care at the
very least, and outright extra work (e.g., octave checks, transpo
Yet another subject ;-)
[...]
Yet another reason to deprecate \relative, which I now avoid like the
plague. (Unfortunately, I was suckered into using it when I started
using Lilypond over a decade ago, so all my legacy code is in
\relative mode. Using Frescobaldi, I’m slowly converting all my ol
49 matches
Mail list logo
