Alan McConnell <[email protected]> writes: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 07:04:28PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> > <sigh> There's a problem. I use >> > ((0 . 6) . ,FLAT) >> > ((1 . 3) . ,SHARP) >> > ((0 . 5) . ,FLAT) >> > for my placement of the accidentals. Using the standard >> > violin clef, the above settings places the Bb in its >> > accustomed position, the F# and Ab ditto. The order is >> > right . . . so far so good. >> > >> > But when I put in a C major scale, starting from middle C, the >> > F(actuall 'fes' in the .ly file) is notated with a sharp! That's >> > because the sharp in the key signature is an octave higher, as I >> > discovered from experiment. The A(aes in .ly) and B(bes in .ly) >> > are notated OK, since they are taken care of by the flats in >> > the key signature. >> >> Well, _my_ documentation says: > . . . . >> Alternatively, for each item in the list, using the more concise >> format `(step . alter)' specifies that the same alteration should hold >> in all octaves. > Mr Kastrup, my apologies! I overlooked that paragraph. I > simply took the snippet of code you gave,
Must have been someone else. > Now I've substituted > (6 . ,FLAT) > (3 . ,SHARP) > (5 . ,FLAT) > and now the alteration does hold in all octaves, as you > and your documentation state that it would. This part of the documentation was not written by me. > But there still remains a problem. The above notation > puts the Bb, F#, and Ab in their accustomed positions > in all instruments that I've tested it with: violin, viola, > and cello. But suppose I want e.g. the F# to be an octave > lower? That might look more striking, helping the musician > to remember. In the Bartok piece I mentioned in the start > of this thread, the key signature for the second violin > is just an F#; but the F# is an octave below its usual > position! Is there a way to do that, while still > making sure that the key signature applies to all > octaves? I have not tried it, but maybe using -4 instead of 3 would help? >> > Thanks to Mr Kastrup for his tips on Scheme/guile. I'll read what he >> > has pointed at with care and, hopefully, understanding<g>. >> >> Well, looks like I should point more carefully... > I am sorry to have irritated you. You have? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
