Re: Certain accidentals

[Brian Barker]

At 14:41 18/04/2014 +0200, Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2014-04-18 8:26 GMT+02:00 Brian Barker:
> > But perhaps you are referring to the method of textual input in 
> > Lilypond, where notes that are named "sharp" or "flat" need to be 
> > qualified as such, notwithstanding what the \key indication would 
> > appear already to imply.  (In this way, Lilypond operates somewhat 
> > counterintuitively and against normal musical thinking.)
>
> seriously?
> "against normal musical thinking"??

Certainly!  I might not have made myself clear, and no-one needs to 
take this as a criticism.

But yes: as we all know, in musical notation, once the key signature 
has appeared, the meaning of the lines and spaces on the stave are 
redefined to the appropriate sharpened and flattened versions of 
their natural values.  In the Lilypond text file, after a \key 
indication, the names of the notes still indicate natural 
versions.  In musical notation, sharps and flats are indicated only 
as accidentals; in Lilypond input notation, they always need indicating.

The Learning Manual says: "New users are often confused by 
[accidentals and key signatures]" and "The key signature only affects 
the printed accidentals, not the note's pitch! This is a feature that 
often causes confusion to newcomers, ...".  I was merely referring to 
this difficulty.

> Look at the output of
>
> { \key g\major g''2. fis''4 g''1 }
>
> Do you really _think_ g f g while playing/singing? Can't believe that.

No - certainly not (though I know people who do!).  You are quite 
right not to believe I could be that foolish.  But there is still a 
difference in the representations: in musical notation, a note on the 
F line after a key signature of G major represents an F#; in Lilypond 
notation, an F after \key g\major represents F natural.  Why else 
would the manual suggest this might "cause confusion"?

> Well, it can be more typing, I don't want it different, though.

I also made no suggestion of any change.

Brian Barker