[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Harmonics in tablature

From: Valentin Petzel
Subject: Re: Harmonics in tablature
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 10:54:15 +0200


Hi Lukas,

That is a rather typical problem you get with harmonic in relative mode. 
Basically in relative mode the octave of the pitch is saved relative to the 
previous note. So this means that one would have to transpose the first note in 
base pitch+octave, while you would have to transpose the other notes only in 
basepitch. But please be away that you should not use relative mode for these 
thing anyway, since you will also get the same problem with the next entered 
note: The next note would be relative to the previous harmonic pitch, not the 
entered pitch, which will make scores very confusing to read.

But as I said earlier, the best way to handle this would be at engraver level.


Am Dienstag, 30. Juni 2020, 11:32:09 CEST schrieben Sie:
> Hi,
> > In Staceys example, I stumbled across the following strange thing
> > where \relative behaves strangely:
> > 
> > mus = \relative c,, { \harmonicByRatio #1/4 <e\3 a\2>2. }
> > 
> > <<
> >   \new TabStaff
> >   {
> >     \set Staff.stringTunings = \stringTuning <a,,, e,, a,, e, a, cis>
> >     \tabFullNotation
> >     \mus
> >   }
> >   \new Staff \mus
> Just to make this explicit: \harmonicByRatio and \harmonicByFret both
> fail if used for chords in \relative mode. The reason is the behaviour
> of calc-harmonic-pitch that can be seen in the attached file.
> (calc-harmonic-pitch looks like a direct reimplementation of \transpose
> c' #pitch #mus, but it differs from \transpose in that in actually does
> something - and even "the right thing" - for music inside \relative if
> given only _one_ note.)
> So I agree (if I understood your remark correctly) that \harmonicByFret
> and \harmonicByRatio should rather accept single pitches only.
> But you're obviously also right in that the implementation of harmonics
> handling should be reconsidered because of the different ways they have
> to be handled in a) staves, b) tabstaves, c) midi. Maybe I can try
> something in that direction over the next few days, but I know this is
> going to be pushing my understanding of Lilypond and scheme programming
> to its boundaries :-).
> Lukas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]