Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches transposed instruments

[Jay Hamilton]

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

--- address@hidden wrote:

From: address@hidden
To: address@hidden
Subject: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 62, Issue 105
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:43:17 -0500

Send lilypond-user mailing list submissions to
        address@hidden

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
        address@hidden

You can reach the person managing the list at
        address@hidden

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 <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches  vastly improved, more comments
        sought
To: Graham Percival <address@hidden>
Cc: lilypond-user Mailinglist <address@hidden>
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
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?