On 05/04/2009, at 9:11 PM, Cornelius C. Noack wrote:
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Don Simons wrote:
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 11:34:45 -0700
From: Don Simons <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [TeX-Music] Transposition with abcpp and pmx
Naturally when I saw Luigi's posting (which BTW I understood
clearly; no
need to apologize for the English) I wondered how much work it
would be to
make PMX do this. I'll give it some more thought. As usual I'd have
to
re-educate myself about what PMX does now under transposition, and
also
explore MusiXTeX capabilities in this area. I'd have to do some
pretty
serious empirical research to work out how to make MusiXTeX transpose
different parts by different amounts. Also, it's not obvious to me
that
everyone would always want to enter all parts in concert key; would
anyone
ever want to enter parts in their transposed keys?
--Don Simons
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]
]
On Behalf Of Christian Mondrup
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 10:43 AM
To: Werner Icking Music Archive
Subject: Re: [TeX-Music] Transposition with abcpp and pmx
Luigi Cataldi wrote:
Dear all,
I've found a *not so polish* trick in order to keep the advantage
of
the
first method when we need to use the second one, with the aid of
the
abcpp preprocessor. Abcpp allows to define different note names and
conditional output. So we have to:
1) define a set of note names for the first transposing
instrument (XA
=
f, XB = g etc.) and another one for the second (YA = c, YB = d
etc.);
2) set in conditional way a different definition of the same
symbols
(XA
= a, YA = a) so that if TRASP is defined the output will be
transposed
and if not the output will not be transposed;
3) Typeset the transposing parts with relative accidents and in
different ways (XA, XB or YA, YB etc).
4) compile with the command
'abcpp -TRASP sample.pmp sample_tr.pmx'
in order to obtain the score to print in editorial way
5) compile with the command
'abcpp sample.pmp sample.pmx'
in order to obtain the score not transposed and
the extracted (if needed transposed) parts.
First of all, many thanks to Luigi for dealing with this problem
and coming up with a solution! Ever since I wrote down Mozart's
Mauerische Trauermusik in PMX (6 years ago, to the memory of Daniel
Taupin in WIMA), I had been bothered by this problem.
Now, to Don's question: IMHO both version are needed, or at least
useful! For the non-professional reader of a score, seeing the
written notes the way they sound in reality is certainly an
advantage. The professional conductor, however, is quite used to
earing in his mind the written transposed notes as they sound in
reality, and would possibly find seeing them non-transposed an
inconvenience in discussing the music with the instrumentalists
during rehearsal.
In fact, most printed scores (even pocket scores) use the
transposed notes for the transposing instruments (These editorial
usages become really awkard, BTW , in contemporary music where you
may see a voice simply named 'clarinet' , leaving the reader with
sometimes extended research into whether the composer meant a
clarinet in B flat or E flat or else, transposed or non-transposed,
for example, with no accidentals to help her decide!).
So I would love to see a simple general PMX option to choose one
or the other of the 2 notations.
ccn.
--
I would echo the need for both options. As I'm (very slowly) learning
about arrangement and composing, I can see that having things in
concert pitch is very handy.
However, I'm mostly involved in the brass bands where it is the
convention that scores are in the written/transposed state, and this
is some where that you would want to be able to write everything in
the transposed state.
-ramon
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
http://mailman.nfit.au.dk/mailman/listinfo/icking-music-archive.org-tex-music
