Dear Br. Samuel, thanks for your thoughts in reply to my mail!
Am 27.12.2014 um 23:48 schrieb Br. Samuel Springuel: > The biggest issue for this would be the fact that gabc and lilypond > notation approach representing music from two different view points. I know that, but it does not seem such a big issue to me: The gabc input should contain a clef (c2 or f3 etc.) and this would fix the relation between the two representations, wouldn’t it. (This implies that there is no general conversion of a-m (gabc) to a-g (LP) but a clef-dependent one). This way I would end up with a definition which note (a-m) is a do and so on. However, it would not mean that the la is 400 Hz. But this latter issue can not be solved in a general way. Or do I still have a misconception here? I would even see that difference as a gain, because the key independent input of gabc seems convenient to me (for chant notation) and the LP representation could be still used in a normal staff and could be transposed. So it would combine the best of two approaches. In fact, I am a bit more concerned about the spacing. In gabc, one can set the spacing within a neume and I don’t know how to do that in LP and gregorio cares less about the timing than LP. > I suspect that not everyone would be satisfied with any particular solution. That might be true and perhaps my reasoning above is too naive. Please correct me then. Cheers, Joram _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
