>
> Are you saying pmx 2.331 acts different from some other version when you try
> to shift the treble clef? Please clarify.
Sorry, my fault, i thought this version solved the schifting of the treble, i did not
read the
readme
> I believe you could do all of this more neatly with
>
> \\let\pmxclefsav\pmxclef\
> \\def\PCLN{\gdef\pmxclef##1##2{\loffset{.8}{\pmxclef##1##2}}\
> \\global\let\pmxclef\pmxclefsav}}\
> ...
> \PCLN\ gn21 o> zg+n Ct [u+4+11 f84 zaf zc o^ ]j rb8 Rd //
Yes, with only one command but i had it to change a little bit (accolades, and for one
obscure
reason i have to define the global\let first:
\\let\pmxclefsav\pmxclef\
\\def\PCLN{\
\\gdef\pmxclef##1##2{\global\let\pmxclef\pmxclefsav\loffset{.8}{\pmxclef##1##2}}}\
>
> Comments:
> 1. You can't put "\PCLN\" right before "Ct" because--by the rules for type-1
> TeX strings--it wouldn't be activated until just before "[u+4+11 f84 ..."
> 2. You don't need to "globalize" the definition of \PCLN\ since it's done
> with type-2 strings, which are already global enough. You do need to
> globalize the redefinition of \pmxclef because it doesn't work otherwise :-)
> . This is a mystery to me. You may or may not need to globalize the \let
> that restores the original definition...I didn't have the patience to do the
> tests.
>
> You also replaced the first solid notehead of the triplet with a half note
> by using
>
> > \\let\qbsav\qb\
> > \\def\HA{\
> > \\def\qb##1##2{\let\qb\qbsav\ha{##2}}}\
> > ...
> > \HA\ [-1 gnfi42x3 d+ g ] rb2 /
>
> Again, I just don't think this is good notation. I think you should leave it
> the way you had it before, with two noteheads side-by-side. Aside from that,
> the only reason it works here is that the upstem on the half note happens to
> be *exactly* the right length to end at the beam.
I agree, but its nice that it is possible to do it. In fact, i had to lower the beam (
[-1..).
>
> > I think the half g at the triplet is token in pmx (can sing midi
> > but one must use the fi in gnfi42x3
> > for no dissonants)
>
> I don't understand this. First, I don't understand why you need all those
> accidentals in the first place. Is there a key signature that's been omitted
> in the example? If so, then it must have a g-flat (since you have a
> g-natural on the first beat of the example). But then it would also need a
> d-flat, and you haven't put naturals on the d's, which would make for some
> rather wierd harmony.
>
> But more to the point, I don't understand the need for "fi". I never
> intended it to be possible to enter more than one accidental on the same
> note, so if "gnfi" does anything at all it's just an accident. But with
> just "gn42x3" it sounds OK to me (the g's are naturals), and it sounds
> exactly the same as with the "fi".
an error: it must be a "gni" in stead of a "gnfi"
Perhaps in the original long version, there are sharps at the key.
about the fi:
I know there was once a mail that explained where the fi's are needed and when not,
i.e. only once
in a mesure?
I do not find it back in the list emails. I suppose it dont hurt to put plenty of
"fi's"
Andre
_______________________________________________
TeX-music mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
