[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: clef change confuses manual key signature
From: |
james |
Subject: |
Re: clef change confuses manual key signature |
Date: |
Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:21:45 +0200 |
On Aug 15, 2012, at 12:18 PM, james wrote:
>
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:54 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Keith OHara <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> That image does not make sense to me at all. Notes appear in key
>>>> signature (though in a different octave) and still carry an accidental.
>>>> How do you distinguish a normal key signature (valid across all octaves)
>>>> from a restricted-octave one (valid only in one octave)? They look the
>>>> same.
>>>
>>> Lilypond docs do not seem to explain any way to print the key signature
>>> accidentals on different lines than standard, except for this crazy method
>>> where the alterations count for just one octave.
>>>
>>> <speculation>
>>> There was no way to alter the printing of the key signature,
>>> someone needed to do so, found the data structure for the local key
>>> signature that tracks transient accidentals, including octave, used
>>> that as a way to serve his need, and posted to the snippets list.
>>> <end speculation>
>>
>> And composers all over the land adopted "this notation". Sounds like a
>> Microsoft success story.
>>
>>> It would be better to use standard key signatures with custom scales
>>> wholetone = #`((0 . ,NATURAL) (1 . ,NATURAL) (2 . ,NATURAL)
>>> (3 . ,SHARP) (-3 . ,NATURAL) (-2 . ,FLAT) (-1 . ,FLAT) )
>>> { \key d\wholetone bes1 }
>>> and adapt the print routine
>>> key-signature-interface::alteration-position
>>> to allow for more flexible printing.
>>
>> No idea. At any rate, I am going for the "valid in all octaves even if
>> octave is given" angle. Of course that is incompatible with current
>> behavior, but current behavior is incompatible with common sense or
>> logic. It is not even possible to guess the pitches one is supposed to
>> play.
>
> Honestly, I don't know what the original intent of lilypond's behavior was
> supposed to be. It wasn't very consistent. If the goal is, now that this
> isn't working, to change this behavior, I think that's a wonderful idea, and
> here is a test case that shows some of the problems of the previous behavior.
> \include "deutsch.ly"
> \version "2.12.3"
> \score {
> <<
> \new Staff <<
> \relative c'{
> \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((0 . 2) . ,FLAT))
> %% note e-flat in this octave %%
> c8 d es f g a h c
> %% and e-natural in this octave %%
> c d e f g a h c
> c h a g f e d c c h a g f es d c
> }
> >>
> \new Staff <<
> \relative c, {
> %% why is this f-natural and g-natural? %%
> a8 h c d e f g a a h c d e f g a
> %% here, it kind of makes sense that it's
> f-natural g-natural
> a'' g f e d c h a
> %% and here, that it should be g-sharp and
> f-sharp
> a gis fis e d c h a
> }
> { %% Key Signatures
> \clef bass
> \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((-1 . -3) .
> ,SHARP) ((-1 . -4) . ,SHARP))
> s1*2
> \clef treble
> \set Staff.printKeyCancellation = ##f
> \set Staff.keySignature = #`(((0 . 4) . ,SHARP)
> ((0 . 3) . ,SHARP))
> }
> >>
> >>
> }
>
> \score {
> <<
> \new Staff <<
> \relative c'{
> \set Staff.keySignature = #`((9 . ,FLAT))
> %% here, the key signature is persistant across
> all octaves %%
> c8 d es f g a h c c d es f g a h c c h a g f es
> d c c h a g f es d c
> }
> >>
> \new Staff <<
> \relative c, {
> %% here, the key signature is persistant across
> all octaves %%
> a8 h c d e fis gis a a h c d e fis gis a a''
> gis fis e d c h a a gis fis e d c h a
> }
> { %% Key Signatures
> \clef bass
> \set Staff.keySignature = #`((4 . ,SHARP) (3 .
> ,SHARP))
> s1*2
> \clef treble
> \set Staff.printKeyCancellation = ##f
> \set Staff.keySignature = #`((4 . ,SHARP) (3 .
> ,SHARP))
> }
> >>
> >>
> }
I would find it a perfectly acceptable solution to have key signatures be
consistent for all octaves, regardless with display method is chosen (i.e.,
with an octave specific key signature or an all-octave key signature), that
would make sense to me, and make my life a lot easier.
- Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, (continued)
- Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, David Kastrup, 2012/08/14
- Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, Keith OHara, 2012/08/14
- Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, james, 2012/08/14
- Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, David Rogers, 2012/08/14
- Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, Reinhold Kainhofer, 2012/08/15
- Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, David Rogers, 2012/08/14
- Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, David Kastrup, 2012/08/14
- Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, Keith OHara, 2012/08/15
- Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, David Kastrup, 2012/08/15
- Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, james, 2012/08/15
- Re: clef change confuses manual key signature,
james <=
- Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, David Kastrup, 2012/08/15
- Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, Reinhold Kainhofer, 2012/08/15
- Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, David Kastrup, 2012/08/15
Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, Colin Hall, 2012/08/17
Re: clef change confuses manual key signature, Mats Bengtsson, 2012/08/15