Re: A few remarks concerning \relative

[Graham Percival]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 04:45:13PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 03:58:32PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> > I don't think that F completely solves it.  I mean, suppose I want
> > to get an A440.  Do I do
> >
> > I mean, I remember that c' is middle C, so c'' is C 523, so it's
> > easy for me to write
> 
> In contrast, doing an arithmetic mean on the frequency is not exactly
> the most natural operation for me, and since to the mind of \relative,
> feses is above eisis, frequencies are not a reliable indicator for
> proximity anyway.

Oh, I'm not taking the arithmetic mean of frequencies.  I could
have just said "c'' is the C above middle C", but I figured that
C 523 was less typing.

> > Coming up with f' or f'' is only easier if you have the absolute scale
> > of lilypond notes memorized, and I certainly don't.  (I don't even
> > remember if those ocataves start on A or C!)
> >
> > Granted, I'm biased because I've been staring at
> >   \relative c{'/''//,/,,} {
> > all this time.
> 
> The interesting question is whether \relative c' gives you (namely
> Graham Percival) a _better_ idea of what the next note will be rather
> than, say, \relative a'.

Yes, it does -- with the admission that I'm biased due to
familiarity with \relative c.  Is a' above or below c' ?  I can't
remember.

I'm not claiming that we should write the documentation for Graham
Percival, of course.  I think that most newcomers would find it
easier to deal with \relative c rather than any other pitch, but
if somebody does a proper experiment, I would be convinced
otherwise.

> For violin players, \relative c' covers nothing below the G-string
> (short of accidentals).  But that kind of reasoning does not sound
> PG-13.

I spent 20 years playing cello, so my area below the G-string is
much larger than a violinist's.

Cheers,
- Graham