Martin Tarenskeen <m.tarenskeen <at> zonnet.nl> writes:
> I often use LilyPond to quickly enter a very simple tune or
> small pianosheet needing just a simple texteditor (Vim). I use \relative
> all the time. c g c e g is soo much faster and easier than c''' g''
> c''' e''' g''' g'''.
If there were a version of \transpose c c'' that was a short as \relative,
\relative c'' { c g c e g }
\octave 2 { c g, c e g }
then the \relative method is not any shorter.
The second line lets me see that the Gs are in different octaves.
>
> And personally I find lilypond code in \relative mode easier to read.
>
> I agree that for complex scores with much music in variables \relative
> mode can have annoying side-effects.
>
I wish the manual did not use the implicit \relative c'' {}
(sometimes \relative c' {} ) enclosing the examples. As soon as
the input gets complicated, \relative becomes difficult to figure out.
Learning Manual 2.2.3 has
\relative c'' {
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff { \time 2/4 c4 e | g g, | }
\new Staff { \clef "bass" c,,4 c' | e c | } >> }
where it could have
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff \octave 2 { \time 2/4 c4 e | g g, | }
\new Staff \octave 1 { \clef "bass" c,4 c | e c | } >>
if there was a function
octave =
#(define-music-function
(parser location octaves music)
(integer? ly:music?)
(_i "Raise or lower @var{music} by a nubmer of @var{octaves}.")
(make-music 'TransposedMusic
'element (ly:music-transpose music (ly:make-pitch octaves 0 0))))
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
