David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes:
> What is the resulting pitch of
>
> \relative c' { ces, } ?
>
> Quick, without thinking? What is the resulting pitch of
>
> \relative f { fes, } ?
>
> Quick, without thinking? What is the proposed resulting pitch of
>
> \relative { fes, } ?
>
> Now there is not even an opportunity for thinking. Yes, f is special,
> but telling people to translate \relative { x } first into \relative f
> { x } and then figuring out its meaning is putting the cart before the
> horse.
>
> The whole point of the choice \relative f is not that f is such a
> pretty pitch, but rather the invariant we get, namely that the first
> pitch after \relative (whether it is only a reference pitch or part of
> the music) is absolute.
By the way: that is the reason I don't propose (I actually did at one
time, though) using \relative f everywhere without changing \relative in
any manner.
f is a distraction. Why wouldn't you want to write
\relative fis { cis ...
instead when in a\major ? f is not even in the scale. Yes, both are
the same, but I don't want to even think about it, and the easiest way
not to think about it is not writing it.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
