Re: question about accidentals

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Sunday 14 September 2003 07:15 am, Rune Zedeler wrote:
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> > It really wouldn't be that difficult to make a setting to
> > make-key-signature-chromatics true which would do what it
> > says and leave notes which have accidentals alone.
>
> Yes it would.
> This way the music definitions would be context dependent, meaning
> that the same piece of lilypond code would result in different music
> depending on the (previously defined) key signature.

True.  You have that already with relative pitch, in spades.  (much 
more so)
>
> Further more I consider it a very ugly construct to refer to the
> absolute note names with no [accidental.] chromatic sign. 

Fair enough, but that's what happens to the notes.  They're on
the staff lines all nude.  That's the whole idea of a key
signature, is so you can have them that way without their
chromatic signs.  Why?  Because it's *convenient*, not because
it's elegant.  I'm not asking that you go so far as to treat
the letter names the same way you treat the noteheads on the staff, 
because they remain absolute excepting only specific reference to the 
key signature.  It may seem ugly to you, but it is not hard to 
understand, and isn't that the important thing?

Also, I propose it as an optional setting, not a default.  daveA

-- 
Why should any country entrust its young people to the leadership of 
the same
morons who *invaded the wrong country*?  Answer: For lots of money.  
The U.S.
is broke, a poor credit risk, and stiffed "partners" in the first Gulf 
War.
D. Raleigh Arnold dra@ http://www.openguitar.com address@hidden