At 14:41 18/04/2014 +0200, Thomas Morley wrote:
2014-04-18 8:26 GMT+02:00 Brian Barker:
But perhaps you are referring to the method of textual input in
Lilypond, where notes that are named "sharp" or "flat" need to be
qualified as such, notwithstanding what the \key indication would
appear already to imply. (In this way, Lilypond operates somewhat
counterintuitively and against normal musical thinking.)
seriously?
"against normal musical thinking"??
Certainly! I might not have made myself clear, and no-one needs to take
this as a criticism.
But yes: as we all know, in musical notation, once the key signature has
appeared, the meaning of the lines and spaces on the stave are redefined
to the appropriate sharpened and flattened versions of their natural
values. In the Lilypond text file, after a \key indication, the names
of the notes still indicate natural versions. In musical notation,
sharps and flats are indicated only as accidentals; in Lilypond input
notation, they always need indicating.
The Learning Manual says: "New users are often confused by [accidentals
and key signatures]" and "The key signature only affects the printed
accidentals, not the note's pitch! This is a feature that often causes
confusion to newcomers, ...". I was merely referring to this difficulty.
Look at the output of
{ \key g\major g''2. fis''4 g''1 }
Do you really _think_ g f g while playing/singing? Can't believe that.
No - certainly not (though I know people who do!). You are quite right
not to believe I could be that foolish. But there is still a difference
in the representations: in musical notation, a note on the F line after
a key signature of G major represents an F#; in Lilypond notation, an F
after \key g\major represents F natural.
Why else would the manual
suggest this might "cause confusion"?
Well, it can be more typing, I don't want it different, though.
I also made no suggestion of any change.