Am 20.09.2012 20:01, schrieb Graham Percival:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 07:45:41PM +0200, Nicolas Sceaux wrote:
Le 20 sept. 2012 à 19:21, Graham Percival a écrit :

A single note name is not that much longer to type than q.  If it is
really important to you, place the single note in a chord:
<des> is perfectly repeatable by q.
What would we lose if every note was automatically a (single-note)
chord?
That behavior is intended, so that you can write:

   c <e g c'> g q c q g q

And the idea, if you wanted to repeat the previous single note, is
to enclose it between < >.
q repeats the last chord, not the last note.  That's why it's named
chord repetition symbol.
I thought the behaviour was intended to simplify things like
   <c e g>4 q q q
Yes, but if you write some "hump-da hump-da" guitar or accordion
comping, then

c, < c e d > g, q c, q g, q

is quite fine; if c, is supposed to be < c; >, then this becomes

c, < c e g > g, < c e g > c, < c e g > g, < c e g >

so the advantage of q is completely lost in such cases.

I'm particularly asking about making every note into a chord
because that would make David's favorite <> construct a *lot* more
consistent.  At the moment, we have
   no note at a time unit: <>
   single note at a time unit: c'4
   multiple notes at a time unit: <c e g>4
from a mathematical/technical point of view, +1
for a musicians point of view rather not.

Regards,

Marc


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Reply via email to