Re: Auto-transposition

[Ralph Palmer]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Neo Anderson <address@hidden> wrote:

Dear All,

Anyway, I'm thankful you've taken your time to solve my problem.

On Thursday, December 14, 2017, 1:29:22 AM GMT+1, Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi David,

>> Because my only goal was to clarify for future readers of the list that "manipulations on stuff" are not the only thing that can cause headaches.
> I failed to see how cut and paste differed from manipulations on stuff.


>> For future list-readers: Using absolute and fixed entry modes allows you to avoid the issues/effort described by David.
> If people would only cease bringing any questions about \relative
> to the list, we'd be able to avoid this particular drum beat.

Agreed. But I would offer that the reason people (esp. newbies) continually bring questions about \relative to the list is because it's not as intuitive and "idiot-proof" as our documentation would suggest — which is precisely why I keep beating the drum, to try to keep people from making the same decade-long mistake that I did (which was to use \relative, as suggested/implied in the official documentation).

Cheers,
Kieren.

Greetings -

Just a reminder and note:

I have been using \relative for years and have been quite happy with it. Perhaps my situation is fairly unique. I transcribe a lot of fiddle tunes, then transpose them down an octave and into alto clef. Using \relative is easier for me than using absolute pitches and \transpose, especially when I need to move an A part or B part up or down an octave because the fiddle tune won't all fit on the viola down an octave.

My point being that I understand the arguments for absolute pitch entry and I prefer \relative pitch entry. I think there's room for both.

All the best,

Ralph

--

Ralph Palmer
Brattleboro, VT
USA
address@hidden